Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

xian

Members
  • Content Count

    407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xian

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. hmmmm.... don't think they've said it was all a deliberate fraud. Never seen that anywhere. What I think they've said is that it was an antiquated system that needs overhauling. A nice little "get-out" phrase that saves loss of face. Anyway, there's good'uns and bad'uns everywhere, every walk of life, and every role. I have no doubt there are many MPs who have never abused the expenses system, as there are those that have. Point is, that probably the same proportion of dodgy bankers are filing dodgy expenses exist as the proportion of dodgy MPs and their claims..... every industry has their fair share of shysters. We just don't get to hear about the dodgy expenses claims by banking staff, because the banks are not publicly owned .... (ahem!!!!) Exactly!! When will that FOI law be passed now we DO have such a large stake in certain banks?
  2. hmmmm... I think it's too simple to apply an inflation-based multiplier to historical HP values in order to value todays true or proper average house price or value . A house is an asset, and any asset can be greatly more or greatly less in demand. Prized tulip bulbs used to cost more than a house in Holland a couple of centuries ago, demonstrating the role of the psychology of markets. Today's asset values aren't and won't driven by historical values and mathematical calculations, too many other factors at play. It might be a mistake wanting or expecting houses to go back to 3x earnings. The zeitgeist may change such that people come to accept that houses do and will always in future cost (e.g.) 4x average earnings. Or more, or less.
  3. *snort* "and do business with the Government" Last time I looked, Government was not a "business", offering neither a choice in a competitive marketplace , nor building wealth. Maybe my understanding is wrong, I'm sure Stalin viewed gulags as good "business"!!! Not saying that our government is anything approximating a Stalinist regime of course, but find it funny that Government services could ever be presented as "business" to "consumers" (the electorate!!). Marketing schmarketing!! Anyway, I prefer to phone up and terrorize them when I'm in a bad mood. An automated response simply wouldn't be as much fun.
  4. maybe, but banks all have expenses systems for their employees too, which, due to human nature, will also be abused by some, maybe not others. Just not so publicly accountable and therefore not transparent, as MP expenses now are, despite many of them trying hard for years not to allow transparency. Hey-ho....
  5. I doubt it. It would mean he's a numpty.
  6. A morally bankrupt take on humanitarian law simply for an almost financially bankrupt institution. While the Human Rights Act might be a badly drafted piece of legislation, the principles are fundamentally right. To take this kind of view of it is nothing short of being seriously morally misguided. If the Act becomes something more used simply to protect those financial assets owned by the already wealthy or at least financially comfortable enough to own shares (in the full knowledge that shares are a gamble anyway), then it just serves to water down something that was intended for much more admirable purposes. Shame on them.
  7. let me guess.... your moniker is crash2006 because that's when you crashed out of your GCSE economics class?
  8. Interesting point this, and along the same lines as I was wondering myself. If a more stringent system of benefits was introduced, with community work being mandatory after a couple of years on benefits, then there would be a huge increase in the costs of staffing and administering the scheme.... assessing people as to whether you can force them into a community work role, what role they can / cannot do depending on their circumstances, liaising with the relevant organisations, dealing with absences / sickness / out-and-out refusals etc. I wonder what the costs would be, and whether such a scheme would actually result in a net saving at all.
  9. the gold fillings in the husband's teeth?
  10. Yep. Get it delivered to someone who likes you and will hand it over, but you don't like them... Seriously though, taking delivery of significant amounts of physical gold is a MAJOR risk IMHO. Why would anyone want thousands of £s worth of gold sitting under the mattress (apart from the bad night's sleep ), when delivery bods and their entire supply chain knows who you are and at what address your gold is held....? Regardless, the risk of burglary alone is enough to have you digging big holes in the garden for it and then laying a patio over!
  11. backed by the WA govt. edited to add (from Moneyweek) The Perth Mint Certificate Programme is the only government backed precious metal certificate programme in the world. It allows investors to own bullion in unallocated or allocated accounts. The Perth Mint is rated AAA by S&P credit rating agency and is one of the safest and securest ways to own investment grade gold bullion. There are no initial or ongoing shipping, insurance, holding or custodial fees and thus it is one of the most cost effective ways for investors to own bullion. Most investors opt to own their bullion in unallocated accounts as there are no insurance or holding fees on them and there is the flexibility of being able to transfer to an allocated account simply by paying small fabrication fees should the investor deem it necessary. Bullion can be shipped internationally from an allocated account or from an unallocated account once it has been converted to allocated.
  12. true. If you're looking to gold as a more short-term investment, then given the lower costs of an ETF, then use that. If you are looking for real insurance, for doomsday scenario, then go for Perth Mint. GoldMoney and GoldBullion lie somewhere in between, but are backed by real gold, not fractional reserve. Personally, I believe that either inflation or deflation are possible, with inflation the more likely, but I don't believe that financial doomsday is upon us. Therefore I already hold physical gold as an investment base, but am now going for ETFs to see out some of the remaining bull run.
  13. All these posts still say "yes, if", or "yes, it goes on", or "it's a reason for". But none address the question directly, i.e. if you were a manager, would you do this? Choose to have incompetents reporting to you? Making your own job harder and harder? And if you would not, then what makes anyone think this is the norm? I have worked for large corporations, medium sized businesses, and run my own company. No-one's saying it never goes on, but it's just idiotic to assume it's the norm and then moan about it, always taking the view that one would be at the top of the pile if only one's brilliance wasn't deliberately passed over by fearful and incompetent managers. edit, anyway, tired now. Off to start my NYE celebrations. My divvy managers will get back to you
  14. this just makes no sense. If you were a manager, would you do this? Choose to have incompetents reporting to you? Making your own job harder and harder? If not, what makes you think this is the norm?
×
×
  • 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.