Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

TheGreatestFool

New Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheGreatestFool

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "We're already in a position where there is not enough work to be done..." You lost me there, sorry. Classic lump of labour fallacy. Even without talking about work involving innovation, where you can always do more to try to push the boundaries further, take a simple example like care for the environment (picking up litter, planting trees) or care for people who are ill or elderly. There is definitely more than can be done. We choose how much of those things to do on the basis of the value that we place on those activities compared to others. The more we do, the less is the marginal value of that work, so it makes less sense to reallocate time from other activities, but it will never be zero. If somebody is truly doing nothing and receiving state benefits, ignoring the compulsion element which a lot of people will disagree with, are you really saying that getting them to pick up litter or help an old person with their shopping is of no benefit?
  2. I think it is definitely a fallacy. Otherwise, how do you explain that every cyclical upturn results in labour shortages and wages increasing above inflation, at least in a properly functioning economy? The problem that young people have when they are starting out is not that there isn't enough work to be done but that they need to prove that they would not be a liability.
  3. FFS, chlorine is a non-issue. There are currently no restrictions in the EU on giving antibiotics to animals that are not even ill. If I go to my GP with a persistent cough, they'll send me home with a patronising lecture on antibiotic resistance unless I'm at death's door. On the other hand, healthy chickens can be pumped full of the latest antibiotic that works on the most resistant bacteria. What's that about EU farming standards?
  4. Still unresolved I think. The ruling by the arbitration panel was for the companies to be compensated, but the EC was ordering the country not to pay out. The country obviously doesn't want to pay, but it does want investors, who are now reticent, to come and invest in new stuff.
  5. It cannot override national law, but it can demand that companies are compensated. For example, when Germany decided to close its nuclear plants because of a tsunami in Japan, some of those plants were owned by foreign investors. The investment treaty had no power to stop the plants being closed, but it could rule that foreign investors should be compensated. German owners had no right to compensation as they were not covered by the treaty. I'm not sure if Germany has paid out. Rulings under these treaties are often ignored as there is no international police to enforce them, but this tells other investors to beware. The NHS drugs example is a red herring. The treaty cannot make anyone buy anything that they don't want to buy. The only thing it can do is demand compensation for drug companies if the NHS buys illegal copies of drugs that are subject to patent, but I'm pretty sure that this is against UK law already.
  6. This is an area I work in. The courts are far from secret and they are there to ensure that foreign companies are not expropriated. As an example, EU State Aid has been used as a tool to expropriate US investors by new entrants to the EU. They would sign a long term contract for investors to build a new power plant in exchange for an agreement on the electricity price. Perfectly reasonable. Upon entry to the EU, the state would declare the contracts as illegal state aid, and the European Commission would oblige by cancelling the contracts, except obviously the investors can't now take their power plant back. This is the EU. Imagine the kind of thing that happens in poorer regions. Companies have rights too, and your pension is almost certainly invested in one of them.
  7. The Brexit referendum was a gamble, and from what I've read, it was Dave's idea and Osborne was against it. Lack of success and stupidity are not always the same thing (just look at the BTL brigade thus far) but they do correlate.
  8. Osborne is not stupid. He knew perfectly well what he was doing.
  9. "There" said I, "falling prices are a good thing for almost everyone" ........except estate agents on % commission and the tax man. Pity the poor darlings!
  10. This thread is like a miniature replica of the situation being discussed. Newcomers accusing native HPCers of being trolls 😄
  11. Amazing post! Wish I'd written it myself. If only you could employ a sub-editor to check for typos 😄
  12. Agree. To be honest I was one of them, though I didn't have the means back then anyway, so there is nothing to regret as such. What I'm trying to say is that if those same people are saying now that it's a bad time to buy, just because they were wrong in 2009 does not mean that they are wrong now.
  13. Hindsight is being mixed up with foresight in some of the posts on here methinks. If you asked an enlightened stock trader in Jan 2000 whether he wishes he'd bought loads of internet stock two years previously, and whether he thinks it's a good idea to buy internet stocks in Jan 2000, you'd probably get two very different answers.
  14. Not buying enabled us to move into the catchment of an amazing state primary, so we save about £15k per year for 7 years on private school fees for the first child and will do so for the second child also even if we move. That's £210k in total, which is quite a few years of rent even in the pricey South Islington where we are. Bargain!
×
×
  • 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.