Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

enrieb

Members
  • Posts

    1,554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by enrieb

  1. Watched this, it caused me to scream at the telly and want to break something.

    One of the employers was moaning that he couldn't get skilled labour and all the people on the dole are unskilled. Response me screaming, "HOW ABOUT TRAINING THEM YOU ******ER!".

    What does he expect people to train themselves.

    TRAINING? TRAINING? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses in which they can get training?

  2. I would wager that those pictures were taken either early in the morning at the weekend, or if during the week before 8am on a school day or half past Jeremy Kyle on a school holiday. The bollards on the surrounding side roads are there to prevent cars from being burnt out on the field, despite this you can see the tracks of vehicles that have been ragged around on the field.

    http://goo.gl/maps/lV5vb

  3. Got bored half way through - seems to ignore the vast swathe of history before about 1600, and the vast amount of non-western history, in order to shoehorn his theory into the facts that he picked.

    I'm guessing you missed the important part about the roman empire then. But I know how you feel, sometimes it's really hard to pay attention to stuff, I was watching that film 12 Monkey's and it didn't make any sense so I stopped watching half way through. I don't understand why they do that, surely a film should be self contained within the first half so that you know what its about, I hate it when they expect you to watch the whole thing just so you can understand what it's about. Books that do that piss me off too.

  4. Are there no viable renewable resources that could be 'mass produced' in the UK? Tidal energy?

    Yes there's plenty of opportunities to build tidal, nuclear, wind etc.. the problem is the huge capital costs of building them, so politicians prefer to ignore the whole peak oil thing, it's political suicide. It would be better to spend the printed bail out money on upgrading our energy infrastructure than propping up banks, because if we wait until oil is $200 a barrel or more, the costs of building these massive energy intensive building projects will also have risen along with the oil price.

  5. For the twitter generation, I'd like to challenge you to explain a HPC concept in 140 characters or less...

    For every £100k your house has gone up in value, your children will be £100K worse off when they have to buy a house.

    While it is useful to have some short phrases to get people to think differently, it's impossible to explain HPC concept properly in such a short amount of text, that's the structural constraints of social media like twitter, youtube comments, etc... Just enough text for you to let of some steam and get it out of your system, but not enough for you to make a convincing case, and if you did have the space would people read it. Peter Schiff was always quite good at getting his ideas across within tight media constraints.

    Concision, in such a small amount of text you can only repeat conventional accepted truths, for which you don't need any evidence and people just nod their heads, anything you say that challenges accepted truths will cause people to think your a nutter, because you won't get the space to give evidence.

    Houses always go up

    They're not making any more land

    You can't go wrong with bricks and mortar

    etc..

  6. My reasons for loving the LVT are as follows:

    No one really owns land. It was taken by force from the commons. I can't just go and make a home on some empty space as some ******* owns it because at one time someone stole it from everyone else.

    Now, as no one would like a free-for-all these days the way way to compensate the commons for the theft of the land is to tax it fairly.

    The percentage of land 'owned' by a tiny few has barely changed since the enclosures. The little patchwork of private homes is drop in the ocean.

    It's stupid to tax labour. One one really likes to labour unless they are one of the tiny few that actively likes their jobs. We want to encourage labour so it seems daft to tax people for something they don't really want to do. Your labour isn't 'wealth' so don't tax it.

    It's far too tax-efficent to hoard property and land. If this was taxed it would pay to dump it back onto the market or rent it out cheaply. It would be a fabulous incentive for start-up businesses who no longer stretch their heads at why commercial property costs so much to rent when so much is empty.

    Yes, but you can only come to that conclusion because you have an understanding of the unfair distribution of land in the UK and how the situation came about. If like *99%* of the population of the UK, you had no clue about land distribution and imagined that it was all pretty evenly distributed and above board you would probably not see much need for a LVT, and you could argue minor points about its potential unfairness whilst ignoring the unfairness of other tax revenue streams.

    ** Made up statistic based on anecdotal evidence

  7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18401164

    Author David Wolman says cash is dirty, expensive and should just be pushed off the cliff.

    He describes his new book, "The End of Money: Counterfeiters, Preachers, Techies, Dreamers- And The Coming Cashless Society," as a eulogy to these rectangular slips of paper and little metal disks.

    But while writing the book, and going without cash for a year, Wolman found that the future of money is about much more than just dollars and cents.

    --------------

    A Judas goat is a trained goat used at a slaughterhouse and in general animal herding. The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards, a Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared. Judas goats are also used to lead other animals to specific pens and onto trucks. They have fallen out of use in recent times, but can still be found in various smaller slaughterhouses in some parts of the world.

  8. ...what about farms that produce food? would that not make food more expensive to buy and export? ;)

    If vast amounts of land were available to the general population they could grow their own food, or buy it at a much reduced price from one of the millions of new independent farmers that would be allowed to use the land. The Duke of Buccleuch (277,000 acres) would have to sell his spare land, unless of course he wants to farm it and produce low cost food for the marketplace.

    To help me answer your questions, What figures are you using for the amount of land allocated throughout the population? what is your underling of land ownership in the UK?

    You cannot seriously think that the current situation is the beneficial to the population of the country, unless of course you're not aware of the current situation. It's right to question the implementation of any new kind of tax system, otherwise the powers that be will balls it up and stack the system in their favour. It seems though whenever a land tax is discussed every little minor 'what about X question' is used to refute and derail a discussion about the concept of a land tax. These very trivial, minor issues are not hard to resolve, in the time that it takes to ask a 'what about X question' you could come up with several methods of making it work.

  9. ...good economic use means renting it out or selling it, you don't require a land tax to make it more beneficial to sell empty property rather than store it empty as a speculative hedge, there are other ways of doing that....... what about people who bought paying in full over many years their only small house they live in and don't have an income apart from £90 pw gov state pension......what about council tax is that not a cost for living on land be it owned or rented..... ;)

    Your confusing land tax with property tax. As a suggestion Land tax could start at anything over 0.1 acre.

  10. Having read this forum for a few months now I keep seeing people proposing a land value tax as a replacement for income tax with the goal that this will somehow sort out the problems with the housing market. I'm not sure if it's just my perception or whether it's really happening, but it seems that this never really gets challenged - presumably because most readers of this forum seem to agree it's a good idea.

    I must be a bit slow or am missing or misinterpreting something, but I don't see why it's such a good thing or how it will help. Please bear with me if I've got this hopelessly wrong but I freely admit I'm a bit ignorant as to the whole reasoning behind this and I hope I'm not the only one. Fortunately ignorance is easily cured.

    Clearly I'm missing something here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

    It's not so much that it will "solve all the problems in the housing market" or any other straw-man characterisations that can be smeared onto the a land tax argument. The hope is that it will be an improvement over the current situation of land ownership and free up some more land for usage. If you want to explore the subject, isn't it best to start with some basic facts and figures about land ownership in the UK and then discus the pros and cons of the reasoning behind it.

  11. Most motorcycle accidents are caused partly or entirely by the motorcyclist, where if they had followed the highway code the accident would not have happened.

    Even 99% of accidents where people "didn't see" the bike either the motorcyclist wasn't wearing high vis or they were doing something illegal like filtering or undertaking, putting them somewhere a driver could not EXPECT them to be.

    A recent study demonstrated that 87.7% of statistics used in internet forum debates are completely made up with no reference to any actual studies that took place.

  12. You say that the alternative may be non-democratic, but why would you assume this to be the case? If we demand democracy in the organisation called the state, would people not demand democracy in other organisations if the state didn't exist? If we decided that the organisation called the state should be democratic, wouldn't we want the same thing from other organisations?

    My basis for my assumption is Human history, what is your basis?

    I'm all for democracy and devolution into a smaller less centralised state, local issues should be decided locally, regional in the region, and national issues like laws and who we go to war with should be decide nationally. At the moment we really don't have a democratically controlled state, we have the chance to elect a dictatorship every four years which serves the interests of the concentrations of power that pay for the election campaign directly, and indirectly via backhanders and honorary seats on the board of corperations etc..

  13. Cooperatives are an example of alternative democratic organisations. If share holders weren't protected by the state, the chances are, spreading the risk over many people would become attractive. Right now, there is no inclination for this, as the state protects the individuals at the top. However, the model works - it is an example of an alternative democratic organisation.

    True the corporation is a statist construct, but what sort of power structures forms in the absence of a state? feudal, warlords, gangs, guilds, bandits etc.. co-operatives an example of an alternative democratic organisation, but for who? members of the cooperative. If a coopertive democratically decided to build a hydroelectric dam on a river, what democratic ability to have a say, do the rest of the people who depend on that river have? in the absence of some form of government or state they have non.

    The state is just a tool, like a hammer it can be used to create or destroy, the state is not a separate evil entry that inflicts its will on the the little people, it's not a godzilla type monster. A bus can be a useful tool in society, or you can let an selfish manic rampage it through the streets causing destruction. The state is not the problem, it's allowing the state to be controlled by concentrations of private power. In the absence of a 'democratically controlled state' (which we don't have now) those concentrations of private power will use other tools to cary out their will.

  14. The state is just an organisation. It is a collection of individuals. It isn't omnipotent and it doesn't exist outside of our reality. Why do you keep pretending it is something different and special?

    At best, the state reflects the opinions and morality of society. At worst, it just reflects the opinions and morality of a few psychos at the top of corporations. Either way, it doesn't exist external to society and it certainly doesn't dictate morality.

    Yes the state is an organisation, but It's probably more accurate to describe it as a 'power structure' and power structures will always exist in any form of complex society. The question is what sort of power structure is the state? is it a power structure that is potentially democratic, one that the population can have some limited control over, or one that is non democratic, which the population have no control over what-so-ever, such as a corporation.

    The state is ultimately just a tool, who controls the tool is up to us, either we allow private tyrannies to control the tool for their own gain, or we take control of the tool for the benefit of the general population.

    Government is the shadow cast by big business on society, attenuation of the shadow will not alter the substance.

×
×
  • 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.