Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Chesnor

Members
  • Content Count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chesnor

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. Both require someone doing violence, can't you see that? No human leaves another to starve unless there is a threat of violence stopping them. There is NO difference.
  2. Nah. They simply followed the money. Where do uneducated unemployed Londoners go?
  3. It's a question of degree, hence I offered a descending scale of opportunity and jobs, hoping you would agree that for some people both are diminishing. I only asked the question, what do we do with the failures? The solution this far has been that the state pays via welfare via taxation. Once the state pays, why should jobless fathers hang around, they're spare parts. The cycle continues, can you try to think of a way out that doesn't label the victims as scum, wasters, feral ad nauseam... I used the prison analogy because the welfare chains on some people are just as tight as real chains. If you are totally dependent on welfare, merrily hopping on a Eurobus for a jolly to earn your fortune will mostly result in penury or much worse.
  4. Are there oppurtunities and jobs for all of them? 50%, 20%, 10%? Please explain what happens to the rest? A prisoner, kept warm, dry and fed well by his captors has it easy. Don't expect him to appreciate it though.
  5. You've capitalised market again, I am sure this isn't a typo again, but another Freudian slip. You revere the market. You capitalise it. I've explained sub-letting increases as rents increase, and that selling council stock pushes rents up, due to speculation and marketisation. You blame the stable rents in the dwindling public stock rather than the increasing rents in the private stock. I agree with you on LVT, but you're putting the cart before the horse. LVT would sort it all out, but it's never, ever going to happen in a country whose leader wears a crown. And as for immigration, if you are so keen on the market (since you have a habit of capitalising it subconsciously) I would have thought you'd be all for the removal of borders. Free markets are not possible without the free movement of people. If you have borders you cannot have free markets.
  6. The Prescott argument. And the argument of every ligger and shyster ever. If he had guts and intelligence and any integrity he wouldn't be riding the train he claims he's trying to crash.
  7. They would have been more scandalous if they were as you suggest, since it would have been capital rich speculators and professional LLs buying up the stock rather than, as intended, occupiers becoming owner occupiers thus achieving the political motive. The flaw either way is that the huge increase in supply plus the necessary increase in supply of credit that was required to facilitate the sell-off policy kicked off the housing trouble we have now. The amount of sub-letting etc. really isn't a function of how much council housing we have, it is a function of overall housing costs. And those costs are driven exclusively by the private sector. That, and pisspoor management of the public stock.
  8. We have been selling council housing, and none of those things have happened.
  9. Rich man hates the EU, becomes part of the EU, gets paid 64 big ones telling the EU how poo it is. Boasts about claiming £2m in expenses for telling the EU how poor it is, makes a career out of it and retires happy and much richer. Hypocritical twit. I really don't care what he says in his speeches. The fact he makes speeches in that place negates anything he has to say.
  10. There is no homogeneous housing market. You appear to believe there is, and believe council housing is subsidised due to imputed rent. You claim the cost to the rest of us increases because of the existence of public stock, but you must acknowledge that the cost of private housing has increased despite a contraction in public stock. So increased marketisation + contraction of the public housing = higher than ever prices. Surely a contracting public supply in your view would be a downward pressure on private rent. It's not though. Please explain.
  11. Could you elaborate on this? (without reference to gigantic exceptions such as Dobson etc...) And I notice you capitalised market there? Freudian slip, perhaps?
  12. It's planned like a game of Jenga is planned. The end result is inevitable. Someone always wins though.
  13. Mattress negation through printing + gold seizure?
  14. I was half asleep, but the BBC said earlier councils are forbidden from selling assets to pay for front line services.
  15. Wouldn't it be terrible if the guys handing out these qualifications used their new found financial muscle to lobby for more laws requiring people have their qualifications to do certain things...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.