Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Pindar

  1. I can't disagree with the majority of what you said but I do object to one particular ethnic group being constantly held up as being superior to all others. It's picking traits in a group that's desirable for employers and then using it as a stick with which to nudge the rest of us like we're somehow lacking and couldn't run a solid economy prior to 2004. There are productive and less productive workers in all places and in ethnic groups. Jingoistic, clichéd supremacism is distasteful and a sure way to create resentment in the native population. Hey, maybe that was the idea.
  2. Can't see the point of letting agents TBH. In this day and age, everything could be done electronically. Why do people feel the need to use these parasitic middle men?
  3. Don't worry, Gordon promised "no more boom and bust" and a "New World Order"... BTW have you watched "The Hunger Games"? It'll all be fine. Shell suits and Nike trainers are super cheap now and affordable even on UBI.
  4. Oh dear. Probably just an unpaid parking ticket from a labour borough where one of his shags lived. Could he have been seeing Diane Abbot?
  5. A good point. The reality will most likely be to create price gouged monopolies rather than the technology being used to actually reduce costs for real people and communities. Any cost savings having been absorbed by governments as carbon taxes and wotnot.
  6. Yes, there will always be the element of technocratic rule at odds with individual liberty. Call me cynical but the promoted politics tend to frame the world from the perspective of a privileged elite. This is then promoted as being the consensus and to object to it is selfish and dangerously individualustic.
  7. Yes, I agree. There'll always be a percentage of people and situations that cannot be catered for by automation. The cost of retaining exclusive ownership may well deter many but will for sure be available to more affluent consumers.
  8. That's true but I suspect that just like with housing, the the technology and environmental commitments already made will tie the hands of any government to take this opportunity to <sic> "build back better" to pass, even if it does annoy their core voters. After all, radical change didn't deter "new Labour" from abandoning its traditional voting bass.
  9. It would certainly be worth doing a more detailed study but it's a hunch of mine that based on my own personal mileage and usage patterns, my car (were it self driving) could provide service to one or more others and I'd wager that they'd be willing to split the cost of ownership and maintenance with me. Even if I shared with one other person whose usage complimented mine, the TCO would halve for the same utilisation. The milage might double or triple but personal mileage is in the region of 20000km. Doubling this on a low maintenance electric car, factoring in brake pads and tyres, the additional wear and tear still makes shared ownership viable IMO. If you also consider that technology could be quite good at finding groups of geographically close co-owners with complimentary journey profiles and you've at least decreased the need for everyone to have their own car, even if it's not perfect.
  10. Smart motorways can only work if the reliability of cars increases and the fallibility of humans is removed from the equation. 5G, satellites and ultra accurate GPS, AI and other technology will combine to provide optimised mass transit in self driving cars and it will all be integrated.
  11. Hmm, corner cases. My point is that with self driving cars, the trend towards WFH, shopping delivery etc. I envisage people owning a stake (via Blockchain tech) in a self driving car pool. Why leave your personal car sitting idle for 90% or more of the time when the technology exists to effectively share it with others and even reduce the average cost for everybody?
  12. I get the feeling that people are blissfully unaware of the pace of change in personal transport and will be shocked at how quickly private car ownership will be rendered obsolete. Self driving cars are coming onto roads near you this year, whether you like it or not. Regulations and punitive terms to obtain insurance on a driver operated car will make driving a car seem like a dangerous sport.
  13. Although I actually like the internal layout, it looks like it would be more cost effective to do a "Grand Designs" on it and start again. I'm sure there are plenty of public servant couples with the cash for such a project.
  14. That, or for there to be more incentives and transport links. It seems a lot of money can be found for political vanity projects like HS2 and cross rail but nobody has the money to upgrade and electrify the great Western and London to penzance lines. I've heard about hi tech incentive for small businesses in Cornwall but as always, housing and infrastructure are but after thoughts.
  15. They say it's kitchens and bathrooms that sell a place.
  16. Of course it's going to pi$$ people off. Earnings from less desirable locations have always been used to buy rights to dwell part time (and eventually full time) in another more desirable or cheaper location. The difference is that Cornwall is more niche and there isn't a lot of excess housing supply. What's the answer? Should everyone born in Cornwall move somewhere where they can earn enough to buy a stake in their home county and then move back there to retire? Do humans have the right to remain in the place where they were born and to live and work there or is their apparent luck at having been born in a nice place fair game for the rest of the world/country - with greater economic clout - to colonise as it sees fit? That's surely what it boils down to. The relatively rich have always used their financial advantage to carve out a more pleasant leisure time in a place "away from the rat race". In bigger countries this isn't a problem and cabins and holiday homes tend to stay in families for generations. Britain is a small overcrowded island and not all inhabitants of nice locations can be protected from the vagaries of the "free market" without being granted some kind of protected status, like Tigers or polar bears. Is this likely to happen in the current economic paradigm? Probably not, though perhaps the Duchee of Cornwall has some plans to keep the Cornish in perpetual twee servitude to his highness, serving cream teas and pasties to the great unwashed in return for cheap subsidised housing and grants to turn their gardens into glamping sites.
  17. Google translated? BBC now using outsourced non native English speakers as caption editors apparently: Angharad (left) braved cold temperatures overnight to ensure to bought her "forever home"
  18. I don't think you're wrong. What's changed since 1950s is globalisation in tandem with absence of consistent regulation of labour and freedom to move capital around. As wealth was built and the economy financialised, it became less politically necessary to ensure wellbeing and a reasonable standard of living for the incumbent populace. The boomers just happened to be accidentally born at a (from their perspective) fortuitous time and continue to believe it's because they worked hard for it. Obviously this generation will blame the boomer generation for the decline in educational standards and the accompanying inability to compete on a world stage, given labour and capital mobility. What was once considered a pleasant place to live is now traded as a luxury, out of reach lifestyle to a world audience. I still think that all this is not completely by accident and there's an element of planning that goes way back. Presumably the elites knew that high skill education and training (in their view) would not be necessary in a service economy since if they're needed, they can be outsourced or shipped in. The result is a kind of fake education and perception of entitlement but with the absence of actual ability to produce it, save for commanding somebody in a far off place to do what would once have been done locally. Germany and other developed economies have somehow managed to stave off the phenomenon of downskilling for now. The intergenerational wealth thing I believe is an illusory carrot and only really serves to preserve wealth in quite rich families. What good is an inheritance of £100k if the only thing that it will "produce" is ever increasing house prices and the cheering on and encouragement of HPI by a media whose integrity has long since bolted?
  19. Maybe as the notion of an ethnically homogeneous, cosy nation state but the notions of "britishness" were exported all around the world and are alive and kicking outside the jaded minds of people who actually inhabit these islands. That's not to say we put the principles of "britishness" into action ourselves, since "democracy" and the institutions and mechanisms that uphold it were long since quoshed because they're inconvenient to the influential and vocal 1%. The HK crowd represents a productive cohort of economically viable "low hanging fruit" for the tiny clique that runs the UK so they'll not hang around when it comes to rolling out the red carpet in the same way that Blair didn't hang around in 2004 with EE. It's also political theatre to be seen to offer a refuge to an oppressed minority against the CCP (despite the fact that the UK and the west have been doing business with the callous regime for many decades) The hypocrisy is painful.
  20. Yeah because anybody who disagrees with the government narrative must be far right 🙄 Being "suppressed" from twitter means he must be saying something that's based on actual science, as opposed to the pseudo-scientific quackery spouted by the mainstream media and all its pundits and talking heads. Hopefully at least those who "follow the science", as shills for various corporate interests get paid handsomely for their blanket recommendations. Reminds me of the medical so-called professionals who hand out drugs to children because "the science" says they're all obviously suffering from the latest made up disease. Finally, the way the BBC and other repositories of wisdom shill for big pharma is shameful and reminiscent of cosmetics company claiming to protect your skin from the ravages of ageing.
  21. Care to provide the peer reviewed science that proves that they do?
  22. It is certainly true that they slow down infection but the data show it's overwhelmingly the sick and infirm who are affected and who, if they so choose, should be isolated during an outbreak. Even the WHO warned against general lockdowns. We were told we were "flattening the curve" yet a year on are still in and out of these blanket shutdowns.
  23. It's almost as if you want to justify a ludicrous and ineffective quarantining of the healthy at any cost, and jump on anyone who disagrees like a rabid dog. Lockdowns don't work, and it's proven by science.
  • 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.