Blackholeshine

In the early 1980s I understand there were more suicides because of the vast number of factory and other business closures. Many of these closures were because of Thatcher's monetarist policy. "accompanied by austerity shock treatment, as is generally recommended by the International Monetary Fund: such a course was taken in the United Kingdom, where government spending was slashed in the late 70s and early 80s under the political ascendance of Margaret Thatcher." I said Thatcher had blood on her hands because of the increase in suicides, but no one took any notice.

Let everyone in the country have a work-for-nothing-month : your usual salary would simply be paid against the country's debt. In the long run this will be a good investment because interest payments would be cut on future debt.

Another property divide: The property of this link is about the price of a London flat: http://www.e-propertylinks.com/listing_details.php?listingID=27531

I've got two points to make: First, I've seen the future and there are no jobs there. Second, I must be the person with the longest period of unemployment : I'v been unemployed for three hundred and thirty two-years. I was born in the middle of the 22nd century when life prolonging systems where being introduce. By the time I became an adult people were not dying from old age and could expect to live to be 500 years old and naturally the retirement age was increased to 450 years of age and so every one held on to there jobs and there were no jobs for any new generations. Therefore I spent 332 on the dole being called a scrounger by those who had jobs. Finally, the world government came up with a solution the the unemployment problem : send people hundreds of years back into the past when there were jobs. So here I am in 2010. Its wonderful here there are plenty of jobs. I person I meet the other day had a incredible 3 jobs interview in only one year. Where I could from you'd be lucky to get that many jobs interviews in one century. I understand if many people from my century join me here, the number of unemployed over the next ten year might swell to 10 billion. (Yes, out world government 350 years in the future wants to reduce unemployment by 10 billion by sending themall to 2010-20.) You may have to import time-travel technology from the future so you to can send your unemployed to the past. How would you fancy getting a job in the year in William the Conqueror's government I understand he has lots a vancies for managing his new subjects. .

There are more non-jobs in the private sector than the public sector: the list is endless car clampers; anyone who works in the gambling industry; people who keep trying to sell you insurance for payment protection, mobile phones, etc; architects who design city centre flats that no one wants; builders who build city centre flats that no one wants; private consultancies that charge a fortune for common sense advice: private medicine that charges a fortune for things the same medical staff could do if they worked for the NHS, etc, etc. The unemployed could be given some of these non-jobs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKN7aWTUrIU

The modern "tyranny" of positive thinking is to blame for society's ills and was the true cause of the financial crisis, according to a new book.. What began as a 19th-century "quack theory" has become the dominant mode of thinking in the United States, she argues, influencing everything from global business decisions to the treatment of cancer patients. "Mostly, though, I blame the top levels of corporate culture which, by the middle of this decade, were completely in a bubble of mandatory optimism and positive thinking." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6952353/Positive-thinking-making-us-miserable-says-author.html . . . .

The Difference Between Barack Obama and Gordon Brown - Have i got news for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjoypNuGm2E

The Empire State Building in New York was completed 1931 ( just after the 1929 crash). Funny this "tallest building in the world) was completed just after our very own crash.

There is something I cannot figure out if anyone can help: If the average age of the first time buyer is 34 and 84 is a typical age when a person can no longer live independently (there are of course people who buy before 34 and people who live independently past 84 but these may be balanced out by people who die before they have reached 84), this means the entire housing stock of 25 million private homes ( if there is not 25 million private homes now, then the new homes built over the next 50 years should mean this figure will be reached in due course) should change hands every 50 years. Repeat the entire housing stock should change hands every 50 years. Over the next 50 years who will be the new 25 million new owners of properties if almost everyone is priced out? If 25 million homes change hands over the next 50 years this means on average 500,000 homes will change hands every year. There is no where near this level in changes of ownership -- why not? If the entire housing stock is to change hands over 50 years, it is not going to change hands at the present rate of change. Does this mean there has to be some future catch up when there are more changes of property than average such as after a crash when property prices are affordable again. Or will 25 million new owners simply come from the present occupiers passing properties to their children?

Useless, Lazy Police http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8iu-ALDj7g

In 1986/7 £10,000 a year was a good salary (today someone on minimum wage would get about £10,000 so this amount back in 1986 was a reasonable wage) so your parents bought at 9 times one decent salary. In 1987 nearly all lenders applied the 3 times income rule so to buy a £40,000 flat you'd need a £10,000 deposit -- equivalent to one year's gross salary - and a reasonable annual salary of £10,000.

......now Lord Mandelson is giving advice to parents on how to rid their homes of the “boomerang” generation. ....The “Parent Motivators” guide is published today http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6969872.ece . .

"What is crazy is that people are prepared to pay all that money to send their kids to private school – almost £30,000 a year to go to Eton – but they are not prepared to pay the money to go to university," Blanchflower said. "Universities are strapped for cash and need more money. So you make the rich pay the market price and use that money to fund the poor." When a person is 18 they are supposed to be an adult. It is all right for parents to pay school fees up to the age of 18 for dependent children, but to jump to the assumption that parents should pay very large fees for adults is taking liberties. A university should charge its students the fees and not the parents of their adult students.

The private sector has more parasites than the public sector. Example 1: Big Business - Google pays no tax on its £1.6 billion earnings in the UK http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6962880.ece There are countless private sector companies like Google. Example 2: Small Business - A betting shop I use is owned by two men who spend everyday at the golf club socialising and only turn up at the betting shop at the end of the day to pick up the takings. Are these men not parasites? At least their business is located in this country whereas many online gambling businesses are based overseas and like Google pay no corporation tax to the British government. Example 3: The Financial Parasites Have Killed the American Economy ..the financial sector is wrapped around the real economy, almost like a parasite http://www.prisonplanet.com/hudson-the-financial-parasites-have-killed-the-american-economy.html

Second blow to universities: University spin-off activity collapses The number of cutting edge British technology companies being created from universities has collapsed in the last year and many that have formed have had to turn to foreign investors, research by Your Business has found. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/6860435/University-spin-off-activity-collapses.html

Imagine if football clubs sold internships: only the sons of successful players would be able to afford them. Imagine a Chelsea or Man Utd where all their players were the sons of a previous generation of players. I'm certain those teams would soon be relegated. They want to use this model for British business.

If a couple in the South East retire at 60, their rent of say £700 a month will still need to be paid. Unless they have a good pension they will have to put their scrounger's hat on and go down to their local council and ask them to pay their rent. This will come to £8,400 a year. If they live to be 90 -- which is in line with life expectancy for this age group -- the local council using government money will spend 30 times £8,400 or £252,000. If they had bought their own property they or the government would not have to pay anything for their housing. If £0.25 million is multipled by millions as will happen when renting becomes the norm the goverment will be facing a staggering bill. If you factor in the cost of state pensions, council tax benefit, etc a pensioner couple who retires at 60 and lives for 30 years will cost the goverment £500,000.

The brightest 30%, for example, of a generation will always earn more than than the less bright 70%. If there were no universities this should be true. Today, if the brightest 30% go to university and guess what? The education establishment claims the brightest 30% will earn more money because they went to university and not because they are the brightest 30% of their generation. It is as much as a con-of-an-argument as taking the Olympic finalists for 100 metres and putting them into a special Sports University and then the university would claim the runners that graduate from our university are the fastest in the world. Lesser Sports Universities will then recruit other sports students on the basis the best 100 metres runners went to university.

I do not know who is buying the properties! One place I lived was Notting Hill, an estate agent there said 5 per cent of the properties are bought by trust funds -- to buy a house you have to compete with someone else's trust fund! There are many who don't have trust funds but get significant handouts from their families if not their parents then grand parents. You have international corporations buying properties for their staff. Near me lived someone who looked like he worked at an African embassy -- his house has security features that look like they were imposed on him because they would have made living at that property uncomfortable -- you are also competing for houses with embassies who buy properties for their staff. When I lived in a London suburb you might get semis which had ten adults living in them from two or three families -- a relative joked a whole village from India would come her to live in one semi. The mortgage would be paid for by ten working adults contributing and in buying a house you would have to compete with ten people who could contribute toward one mortgage. The main problem seemed to be because of the greenbelt there is a limit to the number of properties that there can be in the Greater London area and the demand for these properties far exceeds the supply. The supply means only the top end of the income food chain can be catered for and people in ordinary jobs and without family wealth are pushed out.

IGNORANT IDIOT! Do you think they would people spend hundreds a pounds a month on trains fares and up to 2 hours travelling each way for fun! They do this because they cannot afford to buy in London. You might get a police officer and nurse, for example, who are a married couple, they work in the area they grew up in and went to school and yet even on their salaries they cannot afford to buy in London and they are forced to buy some distance from London. Most Londoners cannot afford to buy in the area they grew up in and work in! You are treating Londoners as if they are inferior British citizens. You think you should have the right right to buy in your area but you say nothing about the right of Londoners to buy in the area they grew up in. It is not their fault they cannot afford to buy in their own area and yet you bash them for not buying in their own area.

We are on French Revolution territory where the elite are lecturing the peasants about their legal right to all their privileges no matter how much the peasants are suffering. When the banking crash first happened there were cartoons of bankers hanging from lamposts. Their deafening demands for bonuses are damaging the fabric of society. Where are they showing some understanding of what is happen to people and the economy?

We need to reinroduce slavery. However, this would be Nuslavery. The only people who would become slaves would be those who refuse to contribute to society such as hardened criminals and people who have lived off social security for more than 5 years. These people would have years to change their ways and if they don't they would be forced to contribute to society. Slavery and the human race have always gone together: it is only in the last 150 years there has been no slavery and that has brought us to this state of affairs. The alternative to getting hard on people is that our societies will collapse because they are feeding and housing too many unproductive people.