Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Young Turk

Members
  • Content Count

    802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Young Turk

  1. If it was before it was common knowledge they were in a relationship, is it possible it was before they were in a relationship? That is the only reason I can see it not being a major issue. If a Professor hires or promote a lecturer he is secretly having sex with, that calls into question whether they were the most qualified candidate, or even qualified at all. But wouldn't it also raise questions about their other activities? Couldn't any marking or any letter of recommendation given by this Professor be considered suspicious (maybe the student with good grades or a glowing letter of rec
  2. Interesting observation. But some of the bankers and lawyers were working class. For example I think Sajid Javid was earning £3m per year when he left Deutsche Bank, but his dad arrived in this country with £1 in his pocket and worked as a bus driver.
  3. I would have thought this would be very rare. Wouldn't they get sacked when found out? And possibly worse (e.g. kicked out their profession and if common knowledge in the industry/field, then wouldn't it be hard to get a job elsewhere?)
  4. I don't think so. It seems like you are in the 78%.
  5. I think there is some truth in this, but I'm sceptical of some of it. Trump campaigned a lot in industrial areas and he talked a lot about how his economic policies would help. When some companies didn't relocate to Mexico, he tried to take credit for saving thousands of jobs. I think a lot of poor people really did believe he would improve their economic position. Around 2017 I still assumed that a lot of Trump voters were Republicans who disagreed with Trump on many things but voted for him for a few reasons (e.g. we want a pro-gun, anti-abortion candidate who will pack the Supreme Cour
  6. Yes I know some people voted with the aim of stopping Corbyn (but I did think Brexit was a bigger reason and that most anti-Corbyn people would not have voted Labour anyway). But that's still tactical voting isn't it?
  7. If everyone thinks that, the best solution might be to build a lot in the least populated settlements or build completely new towns. Of course, there are areas which are big enough to have a new town, but might not be very convenient for jobs. I think it is fair enough that NIMBYs have some influence on where houses are built, but not how many. They should have to make their case and the weakest case loses. Or they should have to pay if they want to prevent building and that can be used to fund building and compensate NIMBYs elsewhere who felt less strongly and were prepared to accep
  8. If it was all about that, why did the Conservatives win in Hartlepool? It's all tactical! The country didn't necessarily decide they were Conservatives in 2019 - they just voted tactically to keep remainers out. Tactical voting should help Labour in Batley and Spen, so that should be interesting.
  9. I think the Conservatives will probably be re-elected easily in 2024, but looking ahead much further than that is hard. I think if you look back at a lot of the big changes in politics you will probably agree that a lot were unexpected, even if the root causes were sometimes well known (e.g. I don't think predicted in the early 2010s that we would soon leave the EU, but the growing popularity of UKIP can make it look almost obvious in hindsight). Financial institutions have to look a lot further into the future. They would need to know that Johnson/Sunak clones would be in power for another 40
  10. If this could feasibly work, why didn't banks think of doing it during previous housing crashes? Hasn't Fat Fergus been trying to sell about 900 houses for many years now? If becoming a landlord of thousands of individual houses was remotely attractive to a large financial institution, don't you think one of them would have bought them? If there was only one mortgage provider, they could decide to let every repossessed property instead of selling. As there are many mortgage providers (additionally there are a growing number of insurance companies providing lifetime mortgages, who wil
  11. Giving banks unlimited money would be a separate problem. But big corporations buying property does not necessarily seem to be a problem. Prices are very high and rental yields are very low. This makes buying a relatively bad investment. If you lived in Tokyo in the 1980s and sold your flat to a bank and then renting it or a comparable one, wouldn't you say you did better out of the deal?
  12. They probably need to build some, but there actually might be enough, but just used inefficiently. This is even more likely to be the case if demand for offices declines and some are converted.
  13. Could you explain this a little further? Who do you think is selling houses and what do you think they are doing with the money? Where do you think the corporate buyers got the money to buy and what do you think they were doing with before? Or what would they have done with it if they didn't buy? Unless sellers fritter away their windfall and buyers conjured money out of thin air, I'm not sure this is necessarily problematic.
  14. The section on discrimination is particularly moronic. Why do they suddenly pretend to care about discrimination? When lockdown was imposed, did they worry that that was discriminatory against people who live alone, in small flats etc.?
  15. What about all the people who still want to go to the office a fair amount? People who live in small homes, or share with noisy people, etc.? They may be in a minority, but I reckon they will be a big minority.
  16. Even if you want to buy now, it would be sensible to rent this place if they are offering a 6 month contract. If you buy somewhere it would take at least a few months, perhaps close to 6 months, or longer if you are a bit unlucky.
  17. Isn't this the opposite of what has happened? Renting has become a lot more expensive (I suppose due to the eviction ban) and flats have become cheaper to buy. As many renters/FTBs would be buying flats, renting has become more expensive and buying less expensive.
  18. It's not concrete, but it's probably based on what he and his colleagues have seen on similar properties. They do the opposite when it's a buyers market. You could test his claims by putting in a high offer. If you offer 460 and are rejected, it probably did go for more than 460. If you offer somewhere around 430 or 440 and are accepted, there probably weren't many offers above the asking price.
  19. Presumably this is a joke (if they were serious, surely they would have hired someone who could write in English). But it's not very funny. This seems a lot of effort to go to for a shit joke.
  20. I thought there was a realisation amongst some Conservative politicians that Osborne might have erred when he introduced HTB and said something along the lines of "we'll have a nice housing boom and everyone will be happy" and that more affordable prices (perhaps slowly falling in value in real terms, or perhaps a proper correction or crash) might actually be a better electoral strategy.
  21. That sounds clever. It obviously does eliminate the possibility of multiple voting, but the possibility of impersonation still exists. First of all, how would the keys be provided? Either they could be sent out, in which case they would risk being intercepted or stolen. Or people could apply at some public office (e.g. bring some documents, try to convince an official that you are who you say you are and if successful they will give you your key), in which case there would be a risk that someone would impersonate you and obtain your key. Assuming you have your key, one of the risks t
  22. It all depends on individual circumstances. Homeowners (if they have enough space to WFH) could take a pay cut and still be better off. But many would need a pay rise to be able to afford a house in which they could comfortably work from home.
  23. This is interesting. Perhaps it is just my lack of understanding, but I wonder if such solutions would be possible. I'd heard someone being interviewed (I think a senior person at Blackrock or some other enormous investment firm) saying they could use a blockchain to save hundred of millions of dollars in administrative costs. I think I can see how they would do that, as it can be unilaterally imposed and is a matter of internal organisation. But I don't see how a blockchain land registry would work in a place where the local officials and institutions aren't trustworthy. How would i
×
×
  • 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.