Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Riedquat

Members
  • Posts

    24,298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Riedquat

  1. A separation between retail and investment banking, and smaller banks full stop, particularly if they're genuinely making obscene profits. There's nothing wrong getting a huge return by virtue of it being a small percentage on an even vaster amount, but it just isn't right at all when that return is concentrated in a very few. It's also probably also not the best outcome for the economy as a whole (which ideally would involve overheads such as banking, be it commercial or retail, only making enough to stay afloat, so that resources can be wholly directed towards productive areas). Smaller banks would mean more competition, and the ones that take the bad risks can go bust without dragging everything else around them - no more "too big to fail".
  2. That would scare the living daylights out of me, and I wouldn't want to be in that situation (although several people have tried to persuade me - "See, you'd only be paying that much"). Where will I be in a few years' time? Paying a hell of a lot more than £500 per month with that mortgage. When I can afford to buy the place I want with a 10% interest rate (even if currently it's well below that) will I consider buying. I'd rather be spending money on rent than permamently crapping myself at the thought of rates going up, which they inevitably will do. Low rates should be viewed as a bonus, not a boon to affordability.
  3. Unless they're forced by circumstances (more kids, lost old job and new one is in another town etc.), which was surely the main driving force for people selling in the past before the market went crazy? Then there are the houses dropping out of the top of the chain as people die; many people won't want to hang on to them and will prefer to sell, and probably won't be quite as concerned with getting what it's "worth". It probably adds up to a slow drop, not the quick crash many are hoping for.
  4. It's a minor component at best, although some people still want to use it as an excuse to build over yet more of the country. In some places there's a supply issue, that's true, and such places will usually be more expensive than places with greater supply (quality notwithstanding), but the shape of increases and decreases is pretty much the same wherever you go. In other words yes, it does affect prices, but it's got little or nothing to do with the bubble. That said, I would be interested in seeing graphs of population, occupancy rates, and building and demolition rates if any has got them.
  5. Protesting, lobbying etc. won't make the blindest bit of difference. If you can be ignored you will be ignored. Forget about persuading banks, governments etc. to do their job properly instead of just lining their own pockets - why are they going to stop just because some people ask them to and shout at them a bit? They'll happily destroy anything and everything in their lust for wealth and power. The people to target are other potential FTBers. Nothing will happen unless enough can be persuaded that taking up shared ownership deals, massive mortgages etc. is the poison that it is. And you need to persuade them that there's some chance of success too, and that they aren't simply trying to stop a runaway train by standing in front of it. Even of the ones who think the current situation is bad there will be many who'll prefer to ride the train and hope for the best. Events such as the radio phone-in the other day will probably achieve more than protesting - both appear in the press in one form or another, but whenever you see a protest, or someone lobbying, how often do you take them seriously if they don't line up with your own thinking?
  6. Only because there's not enough of them to do so. On an individual basis they're no better (if it's bankers they're far worse), there's just not enough of them to add up to as much of a problem. Is that a good enough reason to specifically select them as being able to come here?
  7. Oh, they can sell some, all those BTLs they bought for their retirement. If the ungrateful little blighters won't buy them at their full inflated worth make the amount up by taxing it out of them instead.
  8. I expect even Marx expected the worker to do something slightly useful occasionally.
  9. It reminds me of a story (quite a few years ago) about some French nuclear testing. From what I remember some French minister said "It is not a bomb. I do not like the word 'bomb'. It is a device which is exploding."
  10. Well, the old brickwork has a bit of character, and there's nothing visible in the rest of that picture that couldn't be fixed with a bit of hard work (and money, of course). If the inside is in the same state (which it probably is) I'd be rather more worried. What's that bit of Stockport like? I've seen terraces up for quite a bit more than that (admittedly not repos) in Stockport, so I'm guessing not so good.
  11. What an unpleasant post. You make it sound as if jobs are created as a favour for the people who do they, and that they should be grateful for getting a few peanuts. The job "creators" would soon find themselves in a mess if there was no-one doing those jobs. They rely on the low-paid workers as much as the other way around, and would do well to remember it. Secondly, once again I seem to be seeing a suggestion that anyone can just start up something else instead. That's ridiculous for a whole raft of reasons, partially because not everyone's talents lie in that direction (and quite why that's viewed as more worthwhile than having the talent at actually doing real work is a mystery), and partially because such a system simply wouldn't work.
  12. Not lost the job (yet), but my pay has been cut in real terms, and the standard of living has reduced - money doesn't go as far (particularly when travelling is involved), and the general worry about what the hell will happen has had an even bigger negative effect than any material drops. And not being able to get a sensibly-priced house means that my standard of living isn't where it could be anyway. You seem to be trying to defend the indefensible.
  13. Er, no - it's ludicrously low IRs enabling people to sit tight. Affordability is the key. They're still spouting that one? Someone please show me a graph that shows a correlation between population levels, building levels, and demolition levels. Unfortunately there are even some people on here who seem obsessed with building restrictions, when they're far from being the root cause of the problem. Have we had an unprecedented population rise in the last decade, or have meteors wiped out a few towns (when everyone was away somewhere else)? Too much attention is paid to it makes it harder to get the real problems fixed; even in areas where there's a genuine shortage I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that that's the cause of the lion's share of the overpricing.
  14. An office full of people literally sweating away? No thanks.
  15. House prices are starting to go down, they're just sticking a bit longer in some places. So if your deposit is going to be used for a house then inflation isn't eating it away for that purpose.
  16. But it's only a blip, and we can't risk harming the recovery, you know. Honestly, I'd have thought HPC would've got the message by now.
  17. Just like every tax, as I said. The choices in that case are hoping enough people chip in to paint the lamps, tax people to paint the lamps, or don't paint them and let them rust away. All have their pros and cons. None of them are an absolute right or wrong, and which is the best choice is a matter of opinion.
  18. You still don't understand difference of opinion, Tired of Waiting? I didn't say that it wasn't somewhat authoritarian, just that I don't think that being so is necessarily a bad, or the worst option. No different in principal from any other tax; is it any worse than the VAT you've got to spend to buy the TV in the first place, for example? Are you against the very idea of tax at all? Perhaps; I'm not, so being completely against it would be a difference of opinion. It doesn't have to be an opposite (with many things there isn't an opposite anyway, just a two or more different views). If I were you I'd be more concerned about having to pay VAT on clothes, which are essentials, or fuel to keep warm enough to survive in winter.
  19. It's not just banksters and politicians though. Once you get beyond small business level that's how every single sector works - that's how all the rich become rich (although if you're lucky you can also grab a load of wealth by being a pawn in someone else's self-serving machine, which is how the likes of footballers get wealthy). There is no genuine activity that deserves obscene reward levels. It is only possible to get there by, at first successfully playing, then manipulating the system to your own ends. That IS the system.
  20. And do the board really care about that? Whatever happens they're the last ones to suffer when things go wrong, and the first to gain when they go right (from the company's point of view, even if it's from no-one else's). If they're facing the chance of great wealth the least they should do is face the chance of utter destitution. If not, then the gap shouldn't be anywhere near as great. The reality is that it's simply a case of getting yourself into a position where you can reward yourself. I'm still utterly unconvinced that such people are particularly rare or talented, you simply don't need many of them. I've a lot more respect for anyone getting a succesful small business going without any cliques and access to existing sums - THAT requires hard work and ability.
  21. When we had a rodent problem the cat's contribution towards it consisted of finding more in the garden and dragging them in too. Edit: The problem with poison is that they can end up dying in completely inaccessable places, and the smell of decaying rat isn't pleasant. If you're really inundated it may be the most practical solution, if you're prepared to put up with the smell (and possibly associated hygeine issues).
  22. I'm largely in agreement with that, although not with killing off its reporting, but it needs cutting back - they don't need to spend a fortune shipping hundreds of people to report on every minor event. The TV licencing people need bringing under control, though. Their assumption of guilt, prove your innocence attitude is completely unacceptable, and I'm sure we can all agree on that if nothing else.
  23. They're brilliant and clever at playing the sytem to their own ends, which is arguably what their job is (not what it should be). They're not lucky - they've been supremely good at wriggling their way into this position. It rewards all the most negative things, it's counter-productive to absolutely everyone else, and it stinks. My previous post was devil's advocate / sarcasm (so Laughing Gnome, I wasn't serious, thank god).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information