Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

BorrowToLeech

Members
  • Content Count

    1,951
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BorrowToLeech

  • Rank
    HPC Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

2,754 profile views
  1. This might be the most stupid thing I have ever seen. Not sure yet, still trying to take it all in.
  2. Sure you can - if you don’t like your council, simply move house. Thats exactly the same choice you have when dealing with a landlord, so what’s the problem?
  3. Where’s the evidence for this? The entire real estate market is inconsistent with the idea that economies natural fall into an economically efficient equilibrium. It’s a (relatively recent) political creation for the purpose of collecting rent. Fewer people is a definite possibility, but I think it likely those people will be fighting for political control of the machines and each other, not sitting around trying to whittle faster than the new Fasmatron3000 whittling unit.
  4. First of all, when I talk about politics I don’t mean Westminster politics. That’s only part of it. What I am talking about is people fighting amongst themselves, jostling for position, to gain access to a rent stream. Westminster politics often creates rent streams, but so does the structure of corporations, the legal system, and nature itself. Companies have to stay in business, of course, but that doesn’t always mean economic efficiency. It also means persuading lenders to lend more, acquiring government contracts, lobbying, and so on. Moreover, what’s rational for the people who run a business isn’t always rational for the business. In particular, if your entire business is based upon rent - which includes almost the entire real estate sector, and more besides - then nothing you do creates economic value. Hiring a great salesperson to sell BTL mortgages is rational for the company but only destroys real wealth. It’s a perfect example of a fake job - enabling people who pretend to supply housing have access to printed money that we pretend arises from savings. The whole thing is a facade. The people who have benefited from the last 20 years aren’t the makers and doers, it’s the rent seekers. Makers and doers see their wages competed away, maybe by machines, rent seekers don’t. So the economic signal for people entering the job market are obvious.
  5. I don’t think it’s cut and dried either, and obviously it’s not the case that no manager is doing anything useful and only the front line workers are contributing. Also, I think the reality is more like jobs where a higher proportion of effort is wasted rather than a simple classification of totally useless and totally useful jobs. However, it is pretty difficult to be useless as a front-line worker, so I do expect more fake work to be found in higher paid management jobs.
  6. I don’t think we are striving for economic efficiency. I don’t think employment is driven by economics, I think it is better explained by politics. Politics both internal and external to organisations is the engine of job creation. That’s why we have chains of management, layers of bureaucracy and red tape. That’s people playing politics to collect rent, ultimately derived from a small number of real wealth creators, mostly sitting at the bottom of the pile. The future may well be hyper-real simulations of jobs indistinguishable from actual jobs but having no basis in real work. Real work will be done by machines or the poor.
  7. I think there is another possibility to mass unemployment, and that this may not be a problem, at least for a while, because employment and work are not the same thing. I think it is a myth that the economy is efficient and so employment only occurs where it increases economic value to both employee and employer. It’s possible that machines have already replaced the majority of necessary and even beneficial work, and that much employment has become a vestigial ritual performed in order to access resources. You can’t automate a priest. In other words, Many jobs are already of zero economic value (or less, they are of negative economic value) and only exist for reasons of politics, legal necessity, economic inefficiency or perceived utility that does not exist. I know people who earn a lot of money providing management training and motivational speaking. It is 100% ********, and as such cannot be automated. A lot of jobs are like this, at least in part. For example, much middle management only really exists to provide a bigger empire for senior management, and there are plenty of other similar examples. Even jobs that seem essential, would be considerably less of a requirement if people weren’t too busy coordinating diversity or management consulting to look after their own children or fix their own sink. On a slightly unrelated note, the luddites weren’t anti-technology, that was a propaganda smear. They were against having the costs of automation pushed into them whilst the benefits went to a small number of the super rich. It’s an interesting parallel: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/
  8. Raise bank capital requirements on BTL mortgages, and prevent their use as collateral with the BOE. Tenant protection laws, including a landlord register with fit and proper requirements, and mandatory qualifications. Estate agents dealing in BTL to be regulated as financial advisors selling financial products.
  9. 18. The Alaska dividend only requires one year of residency, but the payment is pretty low.
  10. The land market is already this. Working people forced to support landlords who choose not to work. What you have described is exactly how the current economy operates. In fact we already have land taxes and a citizens income, it’s just we call the land tax rent, let the mortgage lenders decide who can and who cannot collect it, and pretend the whole system has something to do with markets or investments something.
  11. Prices have risen throughout the world, never mind throughout the country. This does not mean they have risen absolutely everywhere. Shut down the local factory, and everyone will move away, regardless of what interest rates are doing, so there will always be some places that aren’t following the general trend.
  12. No, you wouldn’t necessarily expect that, but in any case this is a straw man. Of course there are other factors, and regional variation will occur regardless of the overall, national-level changes. Even if you believe those other factors are significant, falling mortgage rates will push up house prices dramatically, and any other contributory factor is additional to that, rather than an alternative to it.
  13. 1. Homes do deteriorate, even if not to the point of collapse, and need maintainance. That is one reason that second-hand homes should, in many cases, be cheaper than new ones. 2. Homes are mass produced, badly, but I do not believe that the current approach is as efficient as it could be. Partly that shows up in the cost of building, and partly in the standard of building you get for a fixed cost. 3. Completely agree that house building costs aren’t the major factor in pushing up house prices. All I’m suggesting is that the current system for producing houses does not really tell us the true cost of building houses, because the market is broken. Basically, you are assuming that an efficient system means lots of poorly built crappy houses, but we have poorly built crappy houses anyway, so I don’t see any justification for your assumption. Cars, for example, have got better in every possible way over the last 100 years, we aren’t all driving around in Morris Marinas we bought for £5.
×
×
  • 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.