Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Eroginald Rimmington

New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Eroginald Rimmington

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. Why not talk about something that affects the business itself? It could be an opportunity to show off your strategic awareness and enthusiasm for the job.
  2. They are promising to pay out 30 hours of childcare to HWF. £195 per week. This whole system reeks of "deserving" and "non-deserving" poor. It would help me if they separated all in-work benefits from all out-of-work benefits. Then instead of endless tinkering they could just say, for instance, all out-of-work benefits to be reduced by 5%, or all in-work benefits to be reduced 1%, or whatever. I agree with reducing the benefits cap but paying HWFs £195 a week in Mortgage payment relief is a disgrace. Mothers and Fathers should stop scrounging and get a real job like being Mothers and Fathers (whilst also doing part-time work perhaps). This Triple Full Time model family is absurd.
  3. In a market economy I would argue that poverty can be defined with reference to employment. 1. Independent wealth - no need to work. 2. Wealth through work 3. Comfort through work with some state dependence 4. Substinence through work with much state dependence 5. Unemployable with much state support 6. Unemployable with no state support The sad thing with this is that the bottom two rungs have almost chance of escaping. In my book they are suffering extreme poverty. 5. is an extreme poverty of life and 6. is just rank extreme poverty. References to absolute poverty are not helpful in the 6th/7th wealthiest country in the world. If the insinuation is that only people in Chad are truly in poverty then there will be almost no bounds on our ill treatment of the poor. Relative poverty would be useful if we operated on a system of gross national happiness which we do not. In our system relative poverty is encouraged as the prime motivation for people to produce more. Since we all mostly believe that work will set us free, we should target the poverty that prevents people doing so.
  4. I always think that Religion and Debt-based monetary systems/fractional reserve banking are the two great conspiracies of modern (post BC2000) man. Very enduring, very strong; opaque, intricate, seemingly unquestionable. Both with defined hierarchies where a few control the many. Convenient.
  5. The tories love you, but not like that. They want you to either f.uck it up or f.uck off. And aside from the protecting-of-capital-values tory thing that was the second most crucial aspect of their victory - English xenophobia (partially resulting from perceived Scottich zenophobia). Basically, one way or another, the union is likely f.ucked.
  6. Yes so by building housing units that you have already filled with foreign investors at higher prices than last year you will not crash house prices so (in the neoliberal playbook) everything is alright. Selling housing stock to landlords is fine as the artificial scarcity is maintained and the proles continue to pay through the nose. It is all about the market and very little about the proles. This is why I am fundamentally against neoliberalism, yet still a capitalist (and a communist of the money supply). And oddly those two seemingly oppositional positions are compatible in my world view.
  7. In this instance the transformation of the physical infrastructure would lead to a disorderly dismantling of the financial infrastructure. If you build loads of houses the housing market might crash, this might put borrowers underwater, if they default in numbers the banks might crash, the banks crash the stock market crashes, private pensions go under, the government bail people and banks out, then the government is under pressure, debt spiral. So much money is secured on house-debt now that the Reasonable Authorities cannot risk lowering house values. Therefore anything that potentially lowers house values is strictly verboten, though as usual empty rhetoric is encouraged.
  8. Undersupply is quite deliberate. You can always build upwards. The country is not nearly small enough to adopt the undersupply argument.
  9. Since it's a split along nationalist lines (not that I think that is necessarily a good thing): 1. For the English: a clear mandate to revise the Barnett formula (downwards). 2. For the Scots: Devo Max. Triples all round I would have thought.
  10. How would everyone meet every debt obligation plus interest if the money supply was not continually expanded? They could technically repay the capital but where would the interest come from?
  • 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.