Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tallguy

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. As long as the dumpster can be located sufficiently far away from any individual house, I think it's a good idea as long as it gets emptied frequently enough. Obviously, because of high density living conditions, this idea would not be applicable everywhere. There is of course, though, the deeper issue of employment. That is to say, half of the bleeding country are employed by the state, either directly or indirectly. That being the case, reducing the number of people required to do things like clear the bins only means that there is more to pay out in terms of housuing benefit/unemployment b
  2. Governments decide to loosen monetary policy for a variety of political and economic reasons. Central banks implement that policy Commercial banks join the party Any commercial banks that don't take the cheap money are penalised by their shareholders as they become out-competed by the competition. Thus, all commercial banks are dragged to the party whether they like it or not. All of this new money filters down to the domestic lenders. They are under the same competitive pressures as the commercial banks. Thus, they force this new money down the throats of Joe Public. Largely on the back o
  3. Yep, and they don't contribute anything to wealth. They merely redistribute existing wealth at best and redirect some of it out of the uk to non uk owners at worst.
  4. tallguy

    Time To Reflect?

    resource depletion. In particular, the most critical resource of all; energy.
  5. We are a deeply moral species when it comes to equity and fairness. It's a fundamental facet of our social nature.
  6. Money is subject to the price signal mechanism. Both in terms of it';s exchange value with other currencies., bit, also with regard to other goods/services. If the supply of money is held constant but the supply of the things it is exhanged for change, the the exchange value (price signal) of money will also change to reflect this. The reverse is also obviously true. Funadamentally, money is supect to the same laws of supply and demand as anything esle. As such, it is subect to the same price signals that arise from changes in supply and demand.
  7. Straight off, money can have a price signal, as indicated by it exchange value with other currencies
  8. They may or may not be creating a bigger bust. For the record, I think that they are. However, as long as that bust can be protracted over a decade or two, that may well be their only goal. If so, then it's going pretty much according to plan so far don't you think?
  9. I take it, Bruce, from the conspicuous absence of an actual reply to my repeated question, that you do indeed now accept that the vast majority of tenants in the UK are on assured shorthold tenancies of typically 6 month's duration and that they are in a poor market position to negotiate the length of their tenancies due in large part to the 97 act which made such assured shorthold tenancies the default. Oh well, I'm glad we've settled that.
  10. Well, thank you so much for the compliment Bruce. This Steve Cook sound like a capital chap and I am grateful for the comparison. Back on topic Bruce, do you now accept that the vast majority of tenants are on assured shorthold tenancies of typically 6 month's duration and that they are in a poor market position to negotiate the length of their tenances due in large part to the 97 act which made such assured shorthold tenancies the default?
  11. I'm afraid your biscuit reference is lost on me Bruce. Perhaps you might care to address the points in my post?
  12. Why are you so evasive which, given that you are on a discussion forum, I take as highly rude? Do you or do you not accept that the large majority of domestic tenancies in the UK at the moment are assured shorthold ones of typically 6 month's duration and that, following the 97 act, it is very difficult for the majority tenants to negotiate otherwise? If you do, then do you further accept that this represent a significant lack of security for the vast majority of tentants? If you do not accept the above, on what basis do you not accept it? Let me help you here. Telling us all how clever you
  13. You are a silly boy Bruce. My tenancy is for 2 years paid up-front at a significant discount. However, unlike your good self, I am intelligent enough to realize that my personal anecdotal example is statistically irrelevant. Address the points.
  14. No, I'm saying that the vast majority of tenants, following the 97 act, are not in a market position to be able to negotiate the length of the tenancy. Furthermore, as more and more FTBs are priced out of the market, the supply/demand ratio with regards to rental property is becoming such that their bargaining position in terms of rental period is even further undermined. You're not very good at addressing the actual points are you?
  • 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.