Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Content Count

    18,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Riedquat

  • Rank
    I live on HPC!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Euro zone or EU? Cynicism would say the former but despite my generally anti-EU position being able to spread the hardship from the consequences of situations like coronavirus is definitely one for the pro side of the scales.
  2. That's one reason why more money appeals (although the tendency to spend rather than save argues somewhat against it) but it's certainly not the only factor.
  3. How do you fit in with where you are and the people around you? That's how I see the term. Are you insufferably lording it around over everyone at the top? Are you working away directly being useful for those around you? Are you just slogging away to pay the bills on something that has no immediate impact on that bit of society you interact with (most people, probably)? Are you having to survive from the benefit of others? Being in the media just increases the size of the society you're visible to.
  4. Presumably with respect to what and who the person in question actually cares about, how he feels about his position.
  5. That's not what they're doing though - this is where empathy is really required to really get to the heart of the situation. Lumping lots of things together and insisting that they're the same thing, that support for one aspect is support for all of them is failing to understand why people behave (and vote) the way they do, because it's certainly not an accurate assessment of their mindset. Similarly with "facts" - most of the "these people ignore the facts!" arguments are really complaints that other people don't put the same value on them as they do, a refusal to accept that whilst facts are facts how much it's worth bothering about any particular one is entirely subjective. Trump and Brexit though certainly don't demonstrate that democracy is dead, quite the opposite. Although in Trump's case it does illustrate some of the flaws of democracy, but they're not where I think you're coming from. He illustrates the continual failure over a long period to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit in with what I'll call the mainstream (for convenience) - a lack of meaningful democratic choice and a lack of acknowledging, let along addressing, the concerns of many, which eventually breaks out with desperation to go for anything that kicks back against it. The mainstream has taunted for years then complained when it eventually gets punched, refusing to take any responsibility for that. I think it's slightly different with the EU, at least from my perspective, mostly because I don't agree with that level of cross-border political integration. Democracy is all about choosing who has political power and where it should lie. From that level it's really just a matter of personal preference.
  6. I do think it's a little more complex than that. Plenty of people will vote base on essentially greed but don't underestimate the role idealism plays on either side - and there's nothing wrong with that, because a world fitting in closer to your ideals is a better one to live in. Although I suppose you could paint that as a personal gain too. At any rate I don't have any problem with Remainers who voted Remain purely because they like the whole concept and idea of the EU, it's obviously not a position I share but it's easy enough to see why someone might and get passionate about it. I also trust their position more than those who make material arguments.
  7. That's overly black and white, since we (and every other country) is neither utterly powerless or has complete power over everything.
  8. We could well be but I guess it all depends on how quickly / if things recover. It's a bit of an unknown, without the usual sorts of factors that contribute to a recession.
  9. It shouldn't be hard to wrap your head around someone voting against something that's been present since things started to go downhill for someone. You can make an argument that it's an over-simple equating of correlation with causation, that the changes would've been even worse otherwise (I wouldn't agree obviously but it's a reasonable basis for an argument). But the motives really aren't that hard to understand, and if you do want to criticise someone's position you really need to be able to empathise (not sympathise) with it.
  10. Yes, I suppose an obnoxious little twerp who is only capable of dealing with simple absolutes and doesn't understand the difference between arguing about how people will probably respond with whether something is or isn't desirable might come to that rather daft conclusion. If you take away anything from this post then hopefully it'll be the rather obvious idea that you need to consider the downsides and issues with even a good idea in order to make it work, and that pointing those out neither implies disagreement or agreement with the basic idea. But I suspect that's well beyond your rather limited mind.
  11. Even putting aside how accurate "could be" is (does it include a short trip to the shops, even when buying a fair amount?) you still need to deal with the fact that a large proportion of those trips won't be no matter what changes you make, especially in the middle of winter when the rain's almost freezing and almost horizontal. The fact of the matter is if you push cars to the bottom of the list and thus reduce road space for them you'll just end up with more traffic jams. and more annoyed people.
  12. That's a well thought through reply. "Win-win" means everyone's happy. Shoving the form of transport most people use down to the bottom won't make everyone happy. That's the problem with a lot of people pushing such things, they completely ignore anyone who doesn't fit in with their vision of the world. Yes, it would be great if there were fewer cars around, taken in isolation, but don't be so naive as to pretend that that can be achieved without treading on anyone's toes, or that you can easily cajole everyone into behaving how you'd like them to behave. In any case ideally what we need is less need to travel in the first place (and being less of a bloody rush whenever we do - give anyone who says they want faster travel a good kicking!) But unfortunately the only answer to that that seems to be getting large-scale pushing is to try to make sure people never even leave their homes, which is also a terrible idea however much it appeals to the chronically lazy and impatient.
  13. Not if it completely gridlocks a town and pisses off far more people than it helps.
  14. There's a shocking attitude to maintenance these days, with the attitude of build it once then you should be able to leave it alone forever. Certain people grumble about "crumbling ancient infrastructure" (usually as an appeal to build some ghastly cheap and nasty yet still expensive concrete monstrosity) but there's usually little wrong with it, or wouldn't be if they bothered to look after it properly. Yet you see plants growing out of every crack and little sign of anyone being interested in doing anything about it (and not just in very old construction either - remember the Toddbrook Reservoir spillway? The dam was old but that spillway was only from the 70s). Still, "climate change" is a nice excuse to blame something else.
×
×
  • 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.