Pindar
-
Posts
5,069 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pindar
-
-
1 minute ago, Captain Kirk said:
I'm sure you'll still be able to eat Romanian horse meat.
Delicious.
-
I think it depends who you believe. There was a British government scientist fired many years ago for publishing lab results that showed rats getting sick after eating them. For all stories claiming they are safe there are numerous other stories (often not published in the mainstream press or media) that cast doubts on their safety.
-
Chlorine in chicken is no different than adding preservatives to beer, wine, pate or any other perishable foodstuff. The real thing that concerns me is the fact that the EU no longer bans GM outright and leaves it up to individual states to give the yes/no. Of course the UK decided a long time ago that cancer causing GM potatoes and roundup resistant corn are OK years ago. The point is, the EU really doesn't offer much in the way of protection for food additives, in fact, the EU loves food additives - where do you think the 'E' number came from?
-
That's a bit like a krill announcing it will be launching an investigation into whales.
-
On 25/07/2019 at 18:15, crow said:
UK retailers record longest period of falling sales in eight years
Will Boris's bung help get people spending? Will be worth about £240 a month to me (if he actually does it) but it will just get me saving more and preparing for the down turn. Suddenly my job isn't feeling so secure...
All my friends that I talk to about the impending recession and/or hpc just shrug, even the chap I met at the weekend who does up houses for a living didn't seem concerned. Even when I pointed out Boris wants to move the stamp duty to him. Personally think moving SD to the seller is a great idea, esp to help curb multi home ownership/landlording.
It will/would yield a windfall in the event of a BTLers all being forced to sell but people who do properties up for a living usually have to both buy and sell. I think the wider effect of SD on the sale is that it possibly discourages downsizing for people in large and valuable properties.
-
1 hour ago, Locke said:
For the big boys, perhaps, however, the amount of regulation actually increased.
All of the blame. People operate within the system they are given. It is actually illegal for Directors to not maximise profits.
But is it not the big boys that are a big part of the problem? There are sharks waiting in the wings all the time for sudden decreases in property prices just so they can use their contacts to borrow literally millions to buy up property at discount prices while the majority of consumers find it more difficult to get loans. How can ordinary people ever hope to compete with this kind of unbridled greed? To this type of investor, debt literally is money as in many cases they only pay the interest on the capital while renting at yields that exceeds the wildest dreams of the average btl investor.
This is what I mean when I say the system is totally rigged in favour of rentier capitalists with cheap and easy access to sums of money undreamt of by most ordinary people. Then there are the institutional investors like pensions funds and others, all attempting to exploit the almost perpetual-motion growth of the property market.
-
It was once the higher education bubble that fed the housing bubble. Then it morphed into unlimited migration from EU countries. I can remember back in 2006 finding it difficult to find a good quality rental apartment - i.e. one that didn't have a 1980s kitchen, threadbare nylon carpet and an all-magnolia colour scheme. Even in London, around 1997, I struggled to find a decent flat at an affordable price. It was depressing, even back then.
I don't think we should blame the migrants, we should put the blame squarely on the lack of planning and provision of services, housing and infrastructure that failed to match or even anticipate the sudden peak in demand. The planning restrictions in the UK are archaic and protect the interests of the "I'm alright Jack" brigade NIMBYs. The idea that everything can be left to the (rigged) free market is ludicrous, if you accept the fact that the market is rigged. I no longer live in the UK and am lucky enough to own a property now. I would find it difficult to return to the UK unless there was a radical change in immigration policy (to take the pressure off housing and infrastructure) and a return to sensible lending practices and a restriction (like New Zealand) on foreign ownership of property.
-
9 minutes ago, Locke said:
Would you at least agree that this is Government largesse, rather than Capitalism.
By the way, I haven't seen you post before. Are you back after taking a break?
The government has to some extent, had its hands tied by vested interests (short termism, wanting to be re-elected) and even the "labour" government of Blair and Brown were caught up in the tide, having relaxed even further, regulation of the financial industry and lowered standards for the supply, acquisition and control of property. So, yes, the government must share a lot of the blame. Rentierism wouldn't be able to thrive the way it has if regulations were in place to discourage it (from both home and foreign sources). Traditionally, capitalism was restrained by the fact that there was a limited supply of capital. Now they can print the stuff at will and lend it to any old tom dick and harry with a credit score or Johnny foreigner with dodgy money is part of the problem.
I post occasionally, more in recent weeks than normal.
-
The crux of the matter is not on the demand side, it's on the acquisition/control of supply side. The rentier/neoliberal model of economics encourages and rewards the "investment" of printed money in property. The generation with access to this printed money are effectively acting as proxies for the banks that "borrow" this printed money at near zero rates.
This creates a supply that's constrained by planning laws and kept at inflated prices by the "value" attributed to housing as a function of the local rent attainable for a property. Since in many cases, the benefits system is paying the interest on all these loans, it's the average middle/working class and local tax payer who pays for all this price gouging of property while the bankers who are really laughing all the way to the proverbial bank.
-
All aboard the rentier express. More perks for the leeches. Watch for social unrest in the very near future and the future is looking very dystopian.
-
When the government steps in to assist the "free market" we really have reached peak insanity.
-
Far from discouraging the kind of platform rentierism we see with the silicon valley mob with its parasitic, monopolistic stranglehold on wealth and wealth generation, the neoliberal elites love these silicon valley cartels because they cement their global hegemony on wealth "creation" in the "free market" through the appuratus of cartel money-printing, transnational "agreements" made in the 1990s that protect monopolies from competition and the avoidance of any flow of tax back into the communities on which they leech.
The idea of undermining local government must have them salivating profusely. In a world - which as far as silicon valley is concerned - is borderless, the pretense that sucking up 20% fees from around the world is not a tax on the "sharing economy" is laughable.
Technology and trademarks are as cheap as printing money - the secret to their seemingly disproportionate market dominance is not to provide better service but rather to get people to have faith in them so, deservedly or not they become household names. The machinery to make something - whether a brand or service - into a household name is not open to all - it's reserved for the silicon valley clique/crony capitalistic fiefdom and the money printing presses of wall street. Competition is destroyed mafia style by buying up companies and threatening to destroy them unless they sell.
-
The system is totally insane - maximum cognitive dissonance is the order of the day. We are brainwashed all our lives into the "growth is good" mantra whilst being told simultaneously that it's a terrible thing that our population is ageing and that we need more immigration to "boost growth" when the majority of the growth is in the rentier economy - i.e. private landlords being paid taxpayers (our) money to house all the "growth boosting" glorious newcomers.
The "zero carbon" drones are the product of the mindless brainwashing done in state schools that teach us we're all bad and must live our lives in a "carbon neutral" way, despite being trained from an early age to expect the latest gadget or piece of technology every year. These drones are quite happy to bring central London to a standstill from the "moral high ground" of the latest version of the cattle-programming scheme. If the education system taught and encouraged critical thinking, none of this would be possible and would be regarded as cranks instead of being fawned over by the BBC.
If all this isn't too much for a person to bear, you are constantly receiving conflicting messages about body shape, size, gender ID, diet, and other downloaded opinions that make no sense to any rational being. The world is f**cked and it's getting worse doesn't cover it.
-
Narnia Housing Corp, where unfortunately, the wardrobe doesn't lead anywhere.
-
24 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:
I feel there's a decent amount of overlap with minimalism and FIRE.
I think the same thing. I've watched more "Tiny House" videos on yt than I care to mention and yes, for an average person who can live like that it's a viable option. There's also a story I read some time ago about a man who moved his life into camper van and stocked up on enough non perishable consumables to last a lifetime. He then only really needed enough money to feed himself and he calculated he could do that quite comfortably.
If you check out the range and quality of some of the dehydrated food now available on "survivalist" sites, it's technically feasible for somebody to withdraw from paid employment or the requirement for an income on a lot less than a million. It all depends on the living conditions you're prepared to tolerate to achieve it.
-
17 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:
I've carried out a lot of risk analysis in my time both for work/job and for FIRE. People stopping spending everything they earn has never featured in that analysis. I'd predict I have a better chance of winning the lotto (and I don't buy tickets) than I do of my FIRE failing because everybody decided to pursue FIRE. Other black swan events, yes, but everyone pursuing very early retirement, no.
FIRE for me is not about everyone doing it as we all make our life choices and have to live with them. It's about me trying it and then along the way I've blogged about it and written a book not to tell everybody to do it but just to show people what other options they have vs what's rammed down our necks daily in our consumerist world.
That assumes that it's within reach for most people, which I don't believe since it requires a certain level of education, experience and life circumstances.
On the flip side, if everybody decided that consumerism was no longer their raison d'etre, then it's likely that a large percentage of the population would be happy to work only for the essentials and could enjoy the benefits of a lifestyle that has more meaning than just consuming/owning a big house and a nice car etc.
This seems unlikely in the developed economies for the simple reason that the cost of living is elevated just enough to require them to "work for a living" and ensure that it's almost impossible to accumulate enough wealth to break free of the system - i.e. live rent/mortgage free and have minimal energy/transportation costs - aside from a lucky few.
It seems almost a property of the mass indoctrination into consumerism that is mostly responsible for maintaining the status quo - including keeping the cost of housing so high that it really excludes FIRE as an option for more than just a determined few.
-
9 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:
STEM graduate and ruthlessly focused on what I needed to do to earn more (save hard was what I actually focused on so earnings was only part of it) before my career/work/job was outsourced. That included living away from extended family/friends and lots of travel. I went for FIRE after that 2007 wake up call I mentioned above as I thought the clock was ticking on my line of work. I chose FIRE within my discipline vs retraining in a new industry. Not finance or anything around finance. Working in the productive economy that this country no longer likes / values very much.
Don't underestimate the spending part as well. It's an incredibly powerful way to increase savings as it's fully within your control and it's not taxed unlike those increased earnings.
I will say over the years I've witnessed plenty of people sabotage their earnings potential. I have no issue with it as long as people realise they are making that choice to hopefully gain something else. @Si1 gave a nice example above with the "I will not move more than 5 miles from Aberystwyth". That's not in my job description is another one. Not making the bosses life easy is another one. Finding somewhere that rewards what you deliver vs your attendance is another. I could go on. In real terms over that 9 years I increased my earnings by x3 in real terms.
Investments were nothing more than what any of us could buy in our ISA's or SIPP's today. My mantra here was just diversification by both asset class and country, tax efficient investing wherever possible and lowest investment expenses (both wrapper and product). Then it's time in the market and not timing the market along with rebalancing via a mechanical strategy. My annualised investment return has been 6.7% which included the GFC as I started in late 2007. So again not knocking it out of the park; more a slow grind.
The power of And (it's a lot of small things rather than being the best at anything) along with plenty of Determination (it's a 10-15 year contrarian journey in a consumerist world so takes tenacity) are essential as well.
That's lucky you got out in time with enough to sustain you indefinitely. What was it that was outsourced? I am guessing some kind of IT / financial analytics?
-
7 minutes ago, tomandlu said:
Nice - however, the notion that everyone could do this is surely wrong? In theory, yes, you can delay spending, but in practice the world economy would collapse if everyone over 30 retired with a suitable nest egg, surely? The process of saving all that dosh would collapse one end, while the demographics would collapse the other.
That is always my first thought when I read about these things. By definition, an economy is money in motion, flowing between workers, managers, owners and customers. The only way the option of early retirement could be open for all is if nearly all of the activities/jobs/food production that makes the economy function are automated. I wonder if that is a likely prospect or would the uber rich decide that excess humans, all living off of AI are surplus to requirement an somehow cull us all.
-
21 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:
Back in 2007 I'd gone through some not enjoyable/recommended life changes and found myself alone in a sh*t house share in East London. I went from that to £1M in wealth in 9 years. I figured out how to both earn more and spend less (partly by spending only on what brings true value to my life) resulting in a before tax savings rate of around 55% which was literally thousands of £'s per month being saved. Then I figured out how to invest that to both get me to FIRE as well as hopefully support me 'forever' in FIRE.
I'd be interested in what line of work / investment provides this. Simple maths concludes you saved 9k+ per month somehow. Was that by making good investments or are you a stock broker?
-
I think £500k is a realistic figure for a singleton with no children. The question is really how attainable is it for somebody in the UK to save thousands of pounds per month?
-
What we're seeing is a direct consequence of the disastrous decision to sell off local authority housing in the 80s. The "free market" isn't free if it's propped up by housing benefit and the constant meddling by banks, building societies and central government to keep the bubble inflated. At least council houses had fairly low maintentance costs (and consequently cost local tax payers less) after the capital expenditure to build them. The situation now is that landlords and banks get to cream off huge rents (supported almost exclusively by local tax payers) in perpetuity with low expenses/maintenance costs. As a result, everybody is worse off, including those who own their homes outright. When will this madness end? The ideological fanaticism of Thatcher continues to cost everybody dear and far from "lowering taxes", massively increases everybodies tax load.
-
On 17/07/2019 at 11:50, scottbeard said:
I guess that's what I'm saying - over a 30-40 year time horizon as being discussed in this article I would expect sweeping fundamental changes. After all, 40 years ago was 1979: the UK was in the middle of double-digit inflation, and struggling to deal with unions grinding the country to a halt. The internet hadn't been invented, and Europe included such countries as the USSR, West Germany and Yugoslavia. There's no way that 40 years from today the UK or European situation will look remotely like it does in 2019.
With double digit inflation, I don't blame people for striking in the 70s - at least they *could* strike back then. What can people do now? btw the double digit inflation was caused by the labour government devaluing sterling back in the late 60s. Today, with house prices out of touch with reality and real wage growth at depressingly low levels, we need a bit of double digit inflation and wage growth to set things right.
-
7 minutes ago, Freki said:
Example like those:
Biggest scam I have seen around yet
I chuckled when I read the EPC:
Assessor’s name:Adrian Mole
-
That's a side effect of such a huge proportion of manufacturing now being done in China. We might be able to buy Chinese made gadgets, appliances and tat at bargain prices but in the long run there's zero gain because all the money that's sloshing around the system from China ends up finding its way into assets, inflating the price of a home for you and me.
USA taking over UK
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Ewww.