Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. If the nutters don't get it blocked (the ones who want to plaster everywhere they can in wind farms but conveniently ignore how you produce the steel needed to make them, which is what the new Cumbrian mine is going to be for, not power generation, with any non-coal based methods only really being in the prototype stage). We possibly shouldn't have closed them as rapidly as we did, particularly whilst we were still generating power with a significant proportion of coal but importing almost all of it, but keeping them open just in case doesn't make much sense. The instant objection from Labour though demonstrates why they've lost so much support.
  2. Agree with the "precious metals will be useless" people. They're only any use when things haven't collapsed. If it all goes Mad Max then only things of practical use will have value. Anyway it's unlikely enough that it enters "couldn't give a sh1t about it, any precautions, even trivial ones, are an absurd over-reaction" territory and I roll my eyes at is as much as all the other over-cautious cotton-wool wrapping nonsense we're all expected to take seriously these days even though so much of it is in the absurd (and those are in things not laughed at by the mainstream).
  3. For anything to be a deterrent criminals first need to feel that they're likely to get caught. If they don't then the punishments if they do are irrelevant when it comes to deterrents.
  4. It's definitely gone regional. Few signs of problems around here (Manchester area), although my local Tesco still had "no diesel" signs out at the weekend. Haven't seen a queue since the middle of last week though, and when I did they weren't going on for miles, just tailing back in to the road, although I'd heard from others that they'd encountered bigger queues than that.
  5. So we'd be in no worse a situation on the house price front but with the advantage of less development sprawl making a mess of the place, and all the demand that puts on everything else (services, infrastructure etc.) What we'd have probably had is not that much building, but not none either, so going ahead of instead of matching population growth, which again would've been a better situation than we've actually got. Population growth, which is almost entirely immigration-driven in the UK, has meant that building couldn't do better than keep prices steady (whilst the pressures from elsewhere shot them skyward).
  6. And that's the evidence of course. Had to build an obscene number of houses (that's enough for how many large cities?) just to stay where we are! What do you think even half that number of houses built would've done to prices with no population growth?Even absurd interest rates would struggle to maintain high prices in the face of that skew to supply and demand.
  7. Whatever twists and turns you've gone through to get from what I said to that I can't work out. Better never drive above walking pace then. Can't make eye contact with someone busy staring at a phone. I'm not saying they're going to change (although don't underestimate the danger of changing behaviour when "it's someone else's job to avoid me if I act stupidly, not mine"), but you're trying to defend a line that'll say it's automatically your responsibility as a driver no matter the actual circumstances of an accident. I shouldn't even have to point out how absurd that is. I am 100% for people being held to account for their own actions, including myself. Any nonsense like a predefined hierarchy of responsibility is the complete opposite of that. So far you've not actually addressed the most important criticism of this idea, namely that responsibility can be predetermined, and that some people should be held responsible for the actions of others. Whilst we've all got to account for the possibility of stupid behaviour in others we're also responsible for ourselves.
  8. Just think, we could've either not had 3.1m depressing new developments messing up the place, or we could've had those and a supply and demand balance very much pointing to oversupply (although currently low interest rates are the main cause of stupidly high prices they're not the only one). Instead we've got the downsides of building and no upsides. Whoopee.
  9. Interest rates is the biggy, but I'm not sure how you can dismiss insane population growth from having any impact on housing.
  10. That's the "if it's not completely, 100% one thing then treat everything else as the other thing" argument, which seems to be a common fallacy. Remember the thread a little while ago with someone claiming the country's socialist because it isn't 100% pure capitalist and absolutely nothing else? Same fallacy.
  11. I said you shouldn't trust those in the post where I made them!
  12. Yes, you're right. I'd completely screwed up my calculation.
  13. I was going by the average of the numbers you posted in that spreadsheet. But anyway it doesn't point to anything unusual, unless (as has been pointed out) there is very significant seasonal variation.
  14. Is the donor culpable if he's entirely remote and anonymous?
  15. You can remove trends from data to still understand the variations. A sample size of eight years is very small. Right, but as it turns out even if it doesn't ease up it looks like it's actually heading for a below, not above normal total (746 against a mean of 750 for the whole 2013-2020 period). The standard deviation on that period is 70 (rather above my estimate), so quite a wide variation from year to year appears to be normal, although like I said 8 years is rather a small sample size to base that on. No sign of a trend in just that period that I can see, although it would have to be very strong to be visible in just 8 numbers.
  16. From a purely genetic perspective, yes. From a less strict definition, not really (see the local clinic). (not counting the possibility of cloning here).
  17. It's the subjective part you raise I think many have trouble with, many often give the impression that they believe positive or negative are objective. Whilst you can measure some aspects objectively against chosen criteria the choice of those criteria, their importance and their weight, are subjective.
  18. Ah, a bit better, thanks. As others were saying earlier though it's unfortunate it only goes back to 2013, that's not a long enough period to get good statistics. That said it looks to me like the 15% decrease claim is fairly meaningless. My estimated standard deviation was 28, so those numbers aren't too inconsistent with that. However, you say "This year, up till 17th Sept the running total now stands at 579 - with 15 calendar weeks still to go. " If the rate remains constant (no idea on seasonal variation, and of course it's a random thing anyway, but nevertheless) that would end up at 746 for the year, which is a little lower than the average.
  19. What I'm getting at is that to decide whether it's meaningful or not we need to know the typical range of values, which the mean doesn't tell us. I think this works out as being beyond what's reasonably expected (if you take the average number of deaths out of a total population in that age group of 3 million as representing the odds of dying at that age - gives a 0.0262% chance of dying, assuming a binomial distribution gives a standard deviation of 28), but my statistics ability is ropey at best and the distribution assumption may well be questionable too.
  20. So you don't understand the objection to the idea that if the shortcomings of someone's actions being irrelevant when determining responsibility, just the level of vulnerability? So the most vulnerable can wander around with their heads in the clouds (or glued to their phones) secure in the knowledge that nothing they do can be their fault, it's always up to someone else to (somehow) avoid them? If a pedestrian steps out in to the road without looking and gets hit by a car that had no chance to avoid them then the pedestrian is entirely responsible. That they're the one who'll come off worse is irrelevant. That's a simple extreme case, as you move away from that the responsibility starts to shift, but vulnerability still has nothing to do with it. And "it's always the job of someone bigger to avoid me, I shouldn't have to give a damn about them" isn't an attitude that should be encouraged either.
  21. Hmm, at those numbers I can easily imagine random variations could vary them quite a lot in percentage terms from year to year. Any idea how many teenagers there are in total of that age?
  22. Of course praying doesn't help but against such a biased system, one that is less and less interested in actual responsibility, it's about all you've got.
  • 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.