Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

VacantPossession

Members
  • Posts

    2,710
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VacantPossession

  1. USA: using "then" instead of "than" as in "bigger then" ".....and there are extraordinary scenes here".... in news broadcasts about events that are NOT extraordinary but to be expected ".....dramatic" (see above) "controversial" (about opinions that are just different) "Intellectual" (news referring to anyone who actually thinks) "To die for" "For sure" (substitute for "yes")
  2. You reveal your faith when you typed earlier about climate warming "deniers" Climate is not about faith, and nor is its sceptics in denial. I examine evidence and counter evidence and make an intelligent assessment of both. Climate "Science" has become a religion where those of the faith are approved and those who merely ask questions are compared with holocaust deniers. This is appalling. If E=MC squared is challenged as an established concept (and it recently has been), then Einstein might well have been the first to accept the question and respond. There is no consensus on any science. Pretending there is simply stops intelligent thought. By your faith reasoning, it would be possible to agree that the world was flat. After all, THAT was a consensus several hundred years ago. The problem with those of Global warming faith is that they are assuming a consensus where there is none, and such a non-consensus is airbrushed from the mainstream media. The hide the decline emails, data manipulation, refusal to respond to legitimate FOI requests, losing data, extrapolating data for a favourable result and endless other dishonesties does not help your faith either. But even if there is a case, concentrating on carbon does two things: First it enables some really quite dodgy corporations to climb on the faith band wagon for no better reason than financial gain, and second, it ignores much more pressing issues which are far more worrying. Finally, even if the earth was getting warmer, which it has in the past, there are benefits that are routinely ignored. Even assuming your faith had any convincing evidence to back it, carbon trading will do nothing whatever to improve the situation, but it will tax the poor enormously and enrich Al Gore and his gang. The IPCC is a law unto itself. It promotes those of the faith and seeks to influence science media into shutting out anyone who has a plain question to ask. I am deeply suspicious of any "science" that is so paranoid that it cannot answer salient questions.
  3. Euphemisms wind me up. List below with real meanings to the right: "We're going to have to let you go" = We're sacking you because you are useless "Do you have a time frame for completion"? = When will you finish? "My property" = The house I live in which the building society owns "Owner" = Mortgage holder "Leverage" = Risk "Easing" = Injecting a wad of cash indiscriminately "Credit Crunch" = DEBT "Loan re-scheduling" = More debt "Under offer" = Sale is far from completion and unlikely to proceed "Deceptively spacious" = No room to swing a cat "Vendor" = Seller "Surveyor" = Man with cheap damp meter "Valuer" = Man with even cheaper damp meter "Estate Agent" = Unqualified, unregulated spiv in suit "Letting Agent" = Unqualified, unregulated spiv in suit "Solicitor" = One who delays completion gratuitously "Data protection" = Opportunity to invade your privacy "Credit reference" = Profitable method of invading privacy "Credit report" = Access to one's violated privacy "Anti-Fraud" = Excuse not to run a bank efficiently "Identity theft" = Opportunity to profit from paranoia "Call Centre" = Place where phone is never picked up "Support" = You're on your own "Tenancy agreement" = Contract full of unenforceable terms "Leasehold" = Attempt to sell then steal back "Enquiry" = Mechanism to delay truth "Public Enquiry" = Farcical attempt to hide truth "Town Planner" = Obstructive person "Official" = Man or woman with career in pedantry "Executive" = House with over-priced tasteless mock features "Studio" = (see can't swing a cat above) "
  4. Well, when I said customers need cash, I meant they didn't need to be taxed out of existence, and by that I am talking about the disposable income of already hard pressed people who are paying for the greed of others through stealth and other taxes, while the villains of the piece get bail outs, bonuses and carry on regardless. I agree with those, increasing in numbers,who say there is very little that can be done, but if there is one thing it would be NOT to pour money down the funnels of giant corporations, only to be siphoned off at the side of the funnel by the executives of said corporations (see US car industry, UK car industry and Bank X.y and z.) Very little corporate or bank QE has reached the salient parts that needed it. Coming back to small businesses, let us take a typical example of a computer supplier (not PC world etc but small suppliers), and there are thousands in the UK. Their margins are already quite tough, they have become very efficient at putting computers together, responding to bespoke orders, and generally give much better service than the online giants. No amount of credit will solve their problem of fewer customers. It's a prosaic example because 99% of UK business IS prosaic, whether supplying food to the supermarket or offering car repairs. The innovation you speak of is a very small part of the business essentials that represent the backbone of this economy. You cannot industrially innovate your way out of a recession, nor (as I imagine you agree) can you quantitively ease out of it either. A recession is identified by the difficulty in ordinary people having access to goods and services they could afford before it. I think you made an assumption that I was an advocate for hand outs. I am not. However I do think that infrastructure is a good long term investment (roads, rail, transport, useful public utilities etc) and that would be infinitely more useful in the long run than rewarding banks for failure. Like you I have never needed credit but that is because I run a business based on thinking, not consumption of raw materials. I suspect we agree on more than you might think, and I emphasise again that pouring cash into the economy is not the answer in my view. But all politicians are convinced they need to persuade people there is a magic way out of this, but there might not be. What remains therefore is who takes the brunt of the consequences for unparalleled rapaciousness of the Blair/Brown regime (and for that matter the late Thatcherite equivalent in 1990). Saying the answer is not obvious is more honest than pretending there is an answer, and that is the crass mistake this government is making, with much flailing about trying to find "positive" policies most of which are short term elastoplast. On the question of being patronising, I've been on this forum on and off for a very long time. I can "deal with", as you put it, all sorts of opinions and views, but I try to avoid personal rudeness except where someone is obviously being gratuitously insulting or grossly bigoted. It'sold fashioned I know.
  5. Yet more patronising from you. Look here matey, you are not the only person that is running a business. My post was a response to the SPECIFIC announcement of "credit easing". I stick to my point. This announcement was clearly made in time for the Tory conference and was clearly cobbled together without thought about how it happens or what it actually means. Again, I ask you to view the Andrew Neil interview (have you done that?) in order to understand how utterly without substance this announcement is, and how shallow are the thoughts behind it. I also never suggested, as you assume, that I was promoting putting extra or artifiically conjured cash in consumers' pockets. I never said anywhere that I want consumers to spend. I merely said that the overwhelming reason why businesses are suffering at the moment is because they lack customers. You have extrapolated that falsely to assume I meant something more. For the record I am not in favour, just as you are not, of stimulating the economy by creating cash and giving it to anyone, and least of all consumers. Again, I repeat I did not say businesses do not need credit per se. I said that what most businesses needed at the moment was customers willing to buy their products, and that is the overwhelming reason why at the moment businesses are struggling. I did not suggest those customers get a cash stimulus of any kind. Please cease lecturing me with your cod thoughts about business leverage, innovation and investment an rushing to conclusions. Please CAREFULLY read what I wrote and stop assuming what I said when I didn't. I have my own business and do not need your patronising primer on how it works. Thanks so much. In the meantime let me know if you can make head or tail of "credit easing" from the interview I referred you to, and to other vague announcements which are menaingless. As a poster above pointed out. If the government is going to announce something radical, it is helpful to know what its details are before publicising it. Otherwise it appears to be empty PR.
  6. No I didn't say I didn't understand it. Please don't patronise me. Even the minister involved had not a clue how it was going to be implemented, with vague references to government purchasing bonds (a statement she immediately withdrew when pressed), and even more vague statements about providing a credit channel, but no plausible explanation about from where. This is the treasury minister whose job it is to promote this "easing". She was utterly out of her depth and could not provide one single example of how credit easing would be implemented in practice. I recommend you see the Andrew Neil interview on another of today's threads here to see how empty and unthought-through this is.
  7. I wasn't implying that all businesses don't need credit. But the specific purpose of credit easing (as far as one can gather from its very poorly explained announcement), is to make it easier for small business to access credit. It has not been explained in any plausible way and therefore I think it is nonsense and will never make the slightest difference for the vast majority of businesses. It might seem simplistic to you but the majority of small businesses are not suffering from the ability to make things. They are suffering a crippling reduction in customers because consumers are cutting back on spending. No amount of credit is going to stop that.
  8. All this talk of credit easing is just another public relations exercise. To see just how vague and inarticulate this notion is, please see other thread where Andrew Neil destroys a treasury minister who cannot explain what credit easing actually is. What small businesses need is not another line of credit. What will that credit do: Help them produce more things that nobody wants to buy? Keep them ticking over while creating more debt for themselves? What they need is CUSTOMERS walking in and purchasing goods. That doesn't need credit to business. It needs more cash put in the hands of consumers so they can buy the goods already piling up unsold, whether it is cars, computers or holidays. Loans to small businesses will not solve this. Credit "easing" is nothing more than PR bullsh*t.
  9. That woman wincingly demonstrates just how full of FLUFF and inarticulate rubbish that is at the heart of nearly all policies which purport to "help" business. She clearly had not a single clue what she was talking about and has not even a basic grasp of her subject. It was embarrassing. How can the tories issue bonds, or "purchase" bonds in this way? Total rubbish. In not a single sentence did she remotely explain the PRACTICAL steps by which this ridiculous "easing" would be applled. Why? Because it is weasel words and just another PR attempt to APPEAR to be doing something. Businesses don't need credit easing. They need CUSTOMERS. There is no point in taking out credit if that means producing more stuff that no-one will buy. My local computer store has put staff on part time, because they are not SELLING enough computers. Giving them credit to build more computers will not solve it. Giving them credit to "tied them over" will just make them more in debt. They need customers to walk through the door and order goods. Increasing their credit will not produce those customers.
  10. So What? Here's why "so what": He's rich because he has made huge personal wealth from three sources: 1. Media sales of his hysterical global warming campaign, much of which is based on evidence that has big holes in its reasoning (see www.climateaudit.com) and other websites that present PROPER data. 2. He charges $145,000 PER SPEECH about a subject on which he has no qualifications or veriable facts to draw on.You would have thought, since he claims to be so concerned about this subject, that he might deliver a few free speeches. Like Blair, he is cashing in on his own bullS*it. 3. He has earned a lot of cash from his investments in so-called "green" technologies, many of them state-subsidised and a direct result of his own lobbying. Slight conflict of interests here! 4. He owns several large houses, all of which have a massive carbon footprint by his own standards. He owns a corporate jet, several 4x4 vehicles, several other vehicles and his own use of co2 is something he tells everyone else they should do without. That makes him a total hypocrite. 5. His total worth is estimated at between $100 and $200 milllion, all earned from his own exploitation of his "concerns about the environment". FACT: If you want to make the world greener, then stop REAL pollution. Carbon is essential to life and CO2 in the atmosphere is the LEAST concern we should have compared with real pollutants. Even if Gore was correct about the source of "warming" (actually the earth has slightly cooled in the last few years), it would take his carbon reduction policies, implemented fully, over a hundred years to reduce global average temperatures by a tiny fraction. FACT 2: Polar bears are not in danger. In the last few years their population has actually increased by a large factor. Arctic Ice might be melting, but Antarctic ice is growing. The himalayan glaciers are not retreating. Water vapour, sun activity and oceans influence temperature by a factor of about hundred times more than carbon.
  11. Yes. Most (actually all I would guess) housing associations are technically "not-for-profit". That phrase, as you imply, is now utterly meaningless. Similarly, the "green" label is just about the most appallingly exploited term for often not very sound infrastructure investment to go through on the nod, without proper checks or investigation. This business model started with the IPCC and Al Gore (current worth estimated $100-200 million all on the back of much maligned and exposed bogus global warming paranoia - see East Anglia University for more UK info plus www.climateaudit). Even your local pumber and rip off double glazing manufacturers and dealers are swanning around now with green logos festooning their vehicles, ads and company note paper. The green fest is utterly corrupt, and the ultimate in band waggoning. Don't believe a word of it.
  12. When are politicians going to learn? NO AMOUNT of QE, funds, stimulus, freebies, bailouts, bail-ins, loans or small business pick-me-ups are going to make the SLIGHTEST difference to what is happening. The government, on our behalf, is pouring money down the WRONG funnel. Bailing out or recaptalising banks results in the cash pouring in at the TOP of the funnel and it never reaches where it should - the bottom. Instead it is is filtered off and just carries on enriching the banks who do not deserve to be enriched. Similary, shoving wads of cash into "enterprise" schemes or token small business stimulation packages STILL won't alter anything. The people who would stimulate "growth" (whatever that means) are you and me, the TAXPAYER. Right now the goverment, and the banks, are stealing your money in order to pay bucket loads of dosh into the coffers of the very people who LEAST deserve it and those who are LEAST able to recover the economy. What is needed is a cessation to enormous stealth tax rises and the impoverishment of those who had nothing whatever to do with the meltdown. Instead tax payers cash is being used to prop up historically LOW mortgages of many who stupidly bought into the bubble and who couldn't pay their monthly outgoings without historically low interest rates, and who would be repossessed if their mortgages were at proper levels. Meanwhile, those who cannot afford to buy are faced with still ludicrous prices, and they are not protected at all. It is those people who could re-charge the economy, except they have no cash left to spend owing to being fleeced left right and centre. In order to promote growth you have to stop taking away cash from ordinary people. At the moment total tax exceeds 50% as a proportion of wages for those who can LEAST afford it. Meanwhile the disposable income of those already favoured with high salaries and agreeable pensions and perks are taking very small hits compared with the former. The well-off, the bankers and those with very decent salaries still have a very nice level of disposable income. In stark contrast, for example, the people who work at your average supermarket, and even those who are at the front line of banks whose policy makers and bosses NEVER have to meet their irate customers, are earning a pittance. Some supermarket check out employees are doing THREE jobs, and looking after children. We are being treated like acquiescent children by the government, who have persuaded milions that it's THEIR fault if the economy goes down the drain. It's not. It is the continuing fantasy that we can quantitively ease our way out of a depression that is the infantile notion the entire media and compliant electorate are buying.
  13. Tell you what: Why doesn't the BoE cut even further. How about -1%. So if you bought a house in the boom times they'll PAY YOU to keep your mortgage going. It's more or less what they are doing now anyway.
  14. The Radio Times might do well to also present a "summary" of the BBC's own property porn programming, which was every bit as rapacious as the ghastly Ch 4 duo. And the BBC is still churning out property rubbish even now.
  15. Well, everyone who thinks the price is too high or the house for sale is not very good might be considered a "time waster". So if you go into a car dealer to look at a car you might fancy, does it make you a time waster if you reject the car? Of course not. Most buyers of anything, if they are sensible, view a lot of items before deciding to buy. According to your logic they are all wasting time. Really? I take it you sold without buying anything later then? If you did not, you would be a buyer too surely, in which case you might have been someone else's "time waster".
  16. To say the EU undermines the UK's power is also to ignore that the UK itself undermines the power of its electorate. For example, removing EU human rights legislation (as Theresa May now wants to do, for the claimed reason of chucking out terrorist suspects - note "suspects" not tried under due process), will substantially weaken the power of individuals to challenge the UK government on a host of issues. Enshrined in much EU legislation are all sorts of regulations which directly benefit the UK consumer, amongst which are consumer fair contracts, landlord and tenant law that used to be in the dark ages, a palpable improvement in access to legal challenge, and various cultural and social advantages. EU bashing has become a tired cliche which seeks to write-off much ignored benefits. We should concentrate on the removal of EU corruption and waste, but that doesn't mean the entire edifice of European cooperation should be demolished. The EU has prevented the UK from becoming a myopic, self-centred, prejudiced, bigoted and reactionary nation and also encouraged a turnaround in the kind of isolationist policies which were bad not just for business but also for social advances. By all means protest about the waste and corruption, but be aware there is a lot of the same going on within our own shores.
  17. Telling buyers they cannot inspect unless they have sold already is ludicrous given that the seller also hasn't sold either . Thus the two are in an equal position. And if a chain of sellers and buyers also have not sold, that is because they generally ALL have one thing in common: The price they are asking is too much. Since the buyer has no contractual obligation to an agent, the best thing to do is get the postcode, look it up at the Land Registry, establish the name of the seller, knock on his door and politely ask if you can look round. I know many people who have done this and mostly the seller is only too pleased to have a viewer. EAs will say ANYTHING, lie, distort, manipulate, to get a sale. You owe them nothing. They are the ultimate in middle-man irrelevance. Any sensible seller would cut them out at the first opportunity, and unless the agent can prove there is an exclusive agent agreement, sellers would be only too pleased to deal direct. What we need is a Rightmove-type website model, not for agents, but for sellers, so they can easily list their houses nationally, on a portal which has a slick interface. I know they do exist in part now, but none of them are quite on the same level.
  18. With what exactly? For years we've produced fluff, and very little that other nations find useful, unless you really think that gas-guzzling high end cars will solve it. You mean go back to an isolated island state with no cultural, social or co-operative ties with anyone else? And is it just the EU that is somehow draining us? Our own megalithic state machine does a lot of that already. We've got a lot of home-grown waste to address too: Wars, military spending, £12 billion wasted on failed computer systems, Trident, an enormous debt through PFI and of course our own banksters draining tax payer's money which will never be paid back, except by us.
  19. Interest rates, interest rates....and interest rates. They've got to rise, and will even if they go kicking and screaming, but they will rise. That's the only thing stopping an almighty crash. And it will happen....just a matter of time.
  20. I see no point in trusting any of the conventional figures. Since Narionwide's is based on branch level mortgages, that is a poor indicator of prices. It might follow the actual trend eventually but is quite useless for spotting monthy changes. Rightmove and Hometrack's should be dismissed straightaway as they are intrinsically false. RIC's is entirely corrupt, being based on the subjective opinion of its vested interest members. Even the land registry can't be relied on because it doesn't include repossessions, but since repossessions are very often the result of a seller holding on in a sinking market then handing in the keys, they of course should be included. The only way to check trends is to keep an eye on advertised prices then watch them sink over time, and then check what the actual transaction was. Even then there are distortions.
  21. Nu Lab will not get back in as long as the ghastlies of the Blair/Brown era are not purged. As it stands, the current Shadow Cabinet contains a long list of failed and corrupt ex-ministers who all contributed to the policies which ruined the economy. In addition, Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls flipped properties via the tax payer's subsidy, Tessa Jowell was involved in some very dodgy mortgages and the rest of the bunch are all in denial about what they did to prop up a housing boom which led directly to the bust. Milliband must get rid of them then try again. Until that happens, no-one will trust this washed up bunch.
  22. As a veteran Orwellian theme spotter, I don't think in this case it is Orwellian. I think it is Milliband getting as close as he feels able to saying that the wrong people are banksters, oligarchs and short term manipulators of markets. Of course he cannot say that directly because he is leader of a party which since 1997 has purported to be left of centre but in practice has been well to the right of Thatcher on some policies, and he is too frightened of upsetting the city. The constant references to how much "we spent on education and the NHS" (see Ed Balls) doesn't really hide the still present legacy of Blair and Brown. The labour party is still in denial about its past policies which directly ruined the UK economy. You can tell this because, as before, everyone has been instructed to emphasise that it was a "Global" problem. This is a repeat of G Brown's mantra when he claimed he was saving the world, and also instructed all of his cabinet to respond to all press questions with the "Global" answer. Until all vestiges of the Blair/Brown legacy are removed and sent to the back benches, the labour party is unelectable. The list of current shadow ministers tediously excusing themselves with "It was a global issue" is long: Ed Balls Yvette Cooper (Mrs.Balls) Angela Eagle Tessa Jowell Harriet Harman Andy Burnham Caroline Flint Peter Hain Liam Byrne ...are just a few on that list. Even Alistair Darling, the one ex-chancellor who says he warned his contemporaries about the approaching meltdown, hasn't had the courage to admit that at the time he sat on his hands and continued in the job instead of resigning in protest. We then have the very long list of media pundits, journalists and of course the BBC who were all complicit in telling the electorate that all was safe when it clearly wasn't, and lastly the regulators, like Howard Davies, who unleashed a culture of non-regulation which allowed banks to indebt the nation and screw its customers. Add to that all the economists at the LSE and other institutions who failed dismally to warn anyone about the impending recession even when it was staring them in the face (and most of these economists were "on-message" with new-lab), and you have a recipe which renders the labour party as untenable as Thatcher's government during the similar meltdown of the early 1990s. The most significant element of all the above is that when booms are in full flow, people suffer from memory loss, because their personal greed seems to shut out reality. We are being fed a giant fairy tale and being treated like children, and the BBC is the prime suspect in complicity with this fairy tale. It has been firmly told not to panic the electorate. The Labour Party is hopelessly out of touch with the fact that its shadow cabinet needs a thorough purging. Note that Liam Byrne, ex treasury secretary who issued the bizarre memos to his civil servants, and left the famous note saying "there is no money left" to his tory successor, is now back in the shadow team at work and pensions. This absolute shower of a shadow cabinet is of a similar flavour to that which led us into the recession.
×
×
  • 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.