Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bushblairandbrown

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

380 profile views
  1. bushblairandbrown

    What / Who will collapse first in 2019

    Honda Swindon plant https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603
  2. +1. This argument drives me up the wall. Just because we don't know how to do something perfectly doesn't mean we shouldn't make improvements to what we have now. For example, idiots blathering on about "there is no better way to value something than by a free market but that's OK because the free market gets things mostly right except for x, y and z" don't appear aware that implicitly they have valued x, y and z differently to the free market and believe their valuation is more correct.
  3. I can get on board with that. Not what I gathered from your previous post.
  4. bushblairandbrown

    University Bubble Making Hissing Sounds

    It probably would be better. Do you ever stop during the day and think wow I'm really motivated by the fact that I just earned £X in the last hour? I doubt it. Money is very motivational when you're on the breadline but not so much if you're well off. University tutors aren't coal miners; they are going to be reasonably comfortable. And when you're comfortable, motivation to do something well comes from believing in what you do. Education for the sake of education is much more compelling than education to make a profit.
  5. What a strange comment. Plenty of families get by on under 40k quite just fine. 40k is way over the median household income of 27k and is 80th percentile of earnings https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/685507/NS_Table_3_1a_1516.xlsx in uk. It sounds like you are desperate to brag about how much you earn. Are you angry with people earning under 40k because they aren't as interested in how much you earn as you think they should be?
  6. bushblairandbrown

    BBC newsbeat - places to live ranked

    That article is straight up nonsense. It basically just picks out the urban areas except that is heavily skewed by how the areas are divided up. For example some areas are effectively the bounds of a city and score highly. Other significant towns and cities are absorbed into wider rural areas and therefore don't score highly. What an accomplishment in stupidity.
  7. Found a good comment on that link: The heavy financialisation of property, the effect of creating unruly upwards price competition, now at a global level, is to put the cart before the horse. The idea should that housing affordability be only a minor cost to a person, given its importance. That is to say it should reflect only the true cost of materials and labour. Now instead it reflects the maximum you are able to afford under mortgage, and then some. People buy it though, because they have no other choice, because that is all that is offered. The rest get to join the socialist fan club, that ensures further profit for developers at the expense of all. It isn’t even a compromise, just one more avenue. The other side of the coin is that many populations are increasingly not involved in directly productive work, or otherwise do work that is considered basically surplus by the big boys and fast movers . That is to say that they are considered more or less an economic deadweight. They do not realise this until they find the only place they are celebrated is acting as conduit for cash into someone else’s pocket.
  8. bushblairandbrown

    Housebuilders share 2.6 Billion

    I'm not so sure. You have to actively avoid the most ludicrous places like London and the South East. If you realise a game is rigged and you still try to play, I don't think you can complain that you got screwed. Sitting there and complaining that it's not fair gets you nowhere.
  9. bushblairandbrown

    Is inequality growing?

    That makes no sense.
  10. bushblairandbrown

    Is inequality growing?

    There is not a single (legal) market which does not have rules laid down by governments. This is an obvious truth hence why "free market" as commonly used is meaningless and deceitful. Moreover, I guarantee you want to have dental treatment in a nation where medical treatment is heavily regulated and very much interfered with by the government.
  11. bushblairandbrown

    Is inequality growing?

    I couldn't disagree with you more. What do you even mean by free market? Interesting that you use doctors as your example given that the NHS is state controlled and is certainly much less bad than some "free market" alternative. Most people are probably on minimum wage. Do you think that is set by the free market or would you like them to be paid less? People proclaim "free market" when they want to ignore their moral obligations and profit by screwing someone else. Don't get tangled up with them.
  12. Great post. I think this articulates a point I haven't yet been able to. I am sure the cult of entrepreneurship is closely related to the trendy theme (or industry as some would have you believe) of 'innovation', which is also transparently nonsense in almost all cases. I remember being so utterly disillusioned by the whole entrepreneur patter years ago when I heard an interview with one of the investors on dragons den. Some unimaginative ramble about how there were so many entrepreneurial opportunities today now that you could buy in china for cheap and sell in the west. Don't get me wrong, there are some very impressive cases of entrepreneurship, but that is pitiful if that's what entrepreneurship broadly means today.
  13. bushblairandbrown

    Panic at Davos

    This is nonsense. Innovation is worth doing for its own sake. There is no difference between capitalist or socialist systems for innovation. As someone I can't remember once put it: the Soviets could make an intercontinental ballistic missile but they couldn't make a loaf of bread.
  14. bushblairandbrown

    Panic at Davos

    I don't even think this is true. Most people in a situation where they could get rich have interesting enough work that they'd do it even without the huge financial incentive. As far as I'm concerned its the working poor - cleaners, waiters, nursery nurses, labourers etc that are the backbone of any economy. These jobs are hard. Physically hard. The 'success' of capitalism is that it compels people to do these jobs or face destitution. Socialism can never work because people would not do these jobs without very high pay or the threat of poverty. Since these jobs constitute most of an economy (how ever much we may pretend that blogging is a genuinely productive activity) it is not remotely plausible to pay them highly. The threat of poverty is the only viable option to have these difficult and important jobs done properly.
  15. If a landlord exits the market either that house aquires a new landlord or a renter becomes an owner occupier. How do you see this negatively affecting renters in any way? If there is any impact of landlord costs going up, it is that house prices going down as landlords exit the market. There is no additional pressure on rents whatsoever.

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.