Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Posts

    21,532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. Not really. Any model that works better - makes more accurate predictions, fits past data better (in reality those are pretty much one and the same) will generally gain acceptance. "Truth" doesn't come in to it at all.
  2. Huh? That's a strange conclusion to draw from my post. Come on, don't go down the daft black and white, any association or none, all or nothing type route.
  3. IMO that would be sufficient to label yourself as a climate scientist. You don't have to have a degree with that exact title in order for the label to be realistically applicable - don't go down the path I've seen various posters do on various issues of "I refuse to even consider something unless there's 100% undeniable proof of its existence" (and I'm not particularly referring to climate change there).
  4. Being in disagreement with a majority of other scientists on a matter of your speciality raises questions (although not enough alone to get the crackpot label). Being in disagreement with a judge does not, whether they're Irish or from anywhere else. When it comes to scientific matters being qualified as a judge means about as much as being an HPC poster.
  5. Hey, it's questioning the orthodox, religiously accepted truth! And there's the problem, the attitude is very much one of religious zealotry. Even though I'm in (rough) agreement with it the dogmatic approach to this, and many other issues, is bloody disturbing.
  6. Well yes, because that's the sort of effect I'd describe as natural. Only in a"because people behave like this then if you want to achieve that you need to do this" way; you could make a similar argument about building roads being natural.
  7. If someone is staggering around drunk then they're responsible for being in that state. As a driver yes, you've got to take some responsibility for avoiding them (can't just plough them down for being there), but they are also responsible for being in that position. After all I'm sure you'd view their actions as very different and entirely on their shoulders if instead of staggering around in the road they got in to their car. As you point out the legal process will determine who is at fault, and depending on exactly what happened it won't necessarily say "the more vulnerable person isn't". No-one's defending drivers honking their horns at old people slowly crossing, not sure what your point is there. Everyone has a responsibility towards all other road users, no matter what form of transport they are using, from walking to driving an HGV, and all need to show due considerations to all the others. There's no rational hierarchy based on vulnerability, so. e.g. a car driver on a country lane should accommodate pedestrians in the road by not just expecting them to dive out of the way, and pedestrians should step out of the way if possible. What do you mean what do I campaign for? I don't campaign for anything, I just argue against daft black and white arbitrariness and "it's someone else's problem to look after me."
  8. That sounds fair enough but other people still end up with the results of that selfishness.
  9. Er, yes, otherwise you're trying to claim that interest rates are something like the time of high tide. They are set by human beings. In response to what the current situation is, and you can predict likely outcomes from different rates in different situations to a degree, but that's no different from any other decision any person makes.
  10. Why would you say that just because someone laughs at the idea of hyperinflation here then you suppose they thought it would be less than 2% forever? This one extreme or the other stuff is pretty tiresome. Whatever you think of the UK in its current state it's still a very long way from being a banana republic.
  11. People generally seem to forget about Major these days. That's probably the best you can hope for as PM (or maybe the assessment of historians long after everyone alive at the time is dead).
  12. It didn't take Blair to become unpopular; even in his early days as PM when he was supposedly popular I remember him being described as "the least popular popular person ever" on the radio.
  13. Well they only change when human beings deliberately change them rather than being a natural law of the universe, so they're artificial from that perspective, but if you put that aside no, but you can't deny there's a large chunk of policy and intent involved in their levels. If the desire to keep house prices high outweighs that inflationary concern they'll go down; it's not as if the decision is made based on a single variable.
  14. Banks can create as much money as they like. Money is a completely uncalibrated concept (despite the occasional effort like the gold standard to try to make it one), so it only ever buys whatever people happen to agree it buys at any given moment. What they can't create out of thin air is wealth.
  15. Of course drivers of powered vehicles have responsibility for their actions. Still don't see the relevance of your philosophical side-track though. Take for example someone wandering down the middle of the road, paying little attention to their surroundings, and they get hit by a car. Should the car driver have seen them and avoiding hitting them? Yes. Should they have been wandering down the middle of the road? No. Who is responsible? It makes no sense to say that the car driver was 100% or 0% responsible. When walking along a road, particularly one with no pavement, it is my responsibility to be aware of any traffic and react accordingly, and its the cars' responsibility to look out for people like me, to give me time to move, and to give reasonable space where it's not possible for me to do so.
  16. If efforts aren't made to prevent that from happening, and don't under-estimate the chances of that happening. How often are population declines anywhere, or the possibility of them, described as anything other than a negative? Short-termist economic outlooks demand constant population growth and to hell with any other consequences, they don't matter to those pushing for it. In any case you can bet that if we were undergoing population decline right now interest rates would quickly drop strongly negative to help keep those house prices up there.
  17. Which is why I've said often enough that a one-off level of building is acceptable as a necessary evil, but it has to go hand in hand with not engaging in a process of not requiring an everlasting increase (and in the long term reversing this).
  18. Yes and no. The motivation I understand and sympathise with, but the vision of the future painted by the green movement if they get their way depresses me intensely, and they don't even have the basic decency to make the argument "it's not as bad as the alternative."
  19. Just the usual bleating to justify further ongoing destruction and create a worse future thanks to more building. If you're going for the "how do you explain there are no houses you can afford?" line you need to point at all the stupidity that's pushed prices up - low interest rates, buy to let snapping up a lot of the low end of the market, utterly irresponsible attitudes to population growth, that sort of thing. What you don't do is try to justify ongoing vandalism.
  20. Erm, OK. Don't forget to take the pills.
  21. And after it, such as right now, where cases seems to wobbling up and down but showing no strong tendency to continual exponential growth despite a large proportion of people going on about life as normal, and far fewer people dropping dead than at the start of the year despite the level of cases. You've really got to go through some very far-fetched mental gymnastics and leaps of faith to dismiss the idea that that's down to vaccination (probably via the "latch on to one possible other contributing factor and throw away everything else" level of nonsense that far too many people are apt to engage with).
  22. Difference? The Covid vaccine seems to work too. Not 100% effectively, but it certainly works.
  23. It's only the weird attitudes of some people that have made Covid vaccines controversial; go back in time and they'd probably have been saying the same thing about smallpox vaccination. An effective malaria vaccine is very much not a small news story, it's significant.
  24. That one caught me out a little while ago but "jag" is correct in some dialects / regional variations.
  25. I'd say what's wrong with it is the emphasis on the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. High wages, high productivity (itself something I'm suspicious of), all the stuff that sounds great and fancy (to many) but overlooks the less glamorous bedrock that makes a society function, which the fancy stuff can't exist without, and which is more meaningful to everyday life.
×
×
  • 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.