Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mfp123

  • Rank
  1. this radically new idea is called communism.
  2. and the point i would make is that if the poor staff became the norm, and then better staff appeared, but not quite up to the original expectations, that doesnt mean things arent improving, wont improve. you have a different base. theres no point using the barometer of a high standard if its not the reality anymore. a company might be growing compared to the last 2 years but not be as good as 7 years ago. were not trying to grow from 2007, were trying to grow from the current situation of 2013.
  3. partly the point im making is that we did collapse, the economy did tank. we are inside the fall in living standards over the past 5 years, right now. so to say living standards have dropped, wages have been stagnant, thats correct, it happened. were at that place, the high life is over. were in a different proposition to 2007 because weve gone from expecting a new reality to living that new reality. tomorrow however is a different story, and the current indicators are that things are turning. it is approaching 7 years down the line now and i think its important to not keep pretending as though it is 2007 because were in a different situation.
  4. well from the latest statistics, there is a growth in manufacturing and services industries , factory order books are at their highest since 2007. UK services has just seen the fastest growth in 15 years. the economy is forecast to grow about 1.5%. not great but better than being flat. house sales are also rising, home building is up. uk construction activity is at a 10 year high. unemployment has been relatively flat for a while now , but the economy has seen a large loss of jobs in the public sector and a large increase in jobs in the private sector 1.7 million, so there has been some rebalancing in the structure of the economy over the past 3-4 years. the US is also rebounding with growth expected at 2.5% which helps the rest of the world. im sure the shutdown might affect things but they survived a financial collapse so im sure they can get through it. europe has also stabilised. theyve seen the collapse and are living though it. reality has hit home there too. their living standards have been brought down to earth. were not booming by any stretch of the imagination but were no longer sinking either. things are starting to turn.
  5. i think the game changer if were honest was QE. no one saw that coming because it never happened before. without QE house prices would have inevitably collapsed. it was morally wrong in terms of a moral hazard point of view, bailing out banks was also wrong in the same way but it happened so unfortunately people have had to foot the bill for other peoples mistakes. the rules of the game changed and thats simply the reality. inflation is effectively a slow motion default of debt and thats what were seeing. the people who racked up the debt have been given a reprieve.
  6. because we needed to see spending fall and the economy to contract and standards of living to fall. weve seen that and are seeing that, which brings us closer to reality in terms of where we should be. for the average person theres no more mewing, no more millions of BTL loans, no more taking 3 holidays abroad and buying up range rovers. people have had to feel the pinch and we have felt the pinch. people are more frugal and have readjusted their lives to bring them back to equilibrium.
  7. the economy is in a recovery. i dont think anyone really believes the economic outlook is worse than it was in 2007. things have stabilised. there have been hardly any repossessions and people have had an extra 6 years to pay off their debts. the economy may not be great but its better than it was, growth is rising, services and manufacturing data is up, confidence is up, employment is stable and falling slightly. house prices and home sales appear to be rising. rents are higher, prices outside of london did fall or have at least stayed stagnant, allowing real house prices to fall based on inflation. i think people looking to pick up cheap properties in an all out collapse hope for this for their own sake rather than expect it to happen. over the past 6 years people have toughed it out, with rising prices and lower standards of living which is reflective of the rebalancing of the economy and where we are at.
  8. i always think there should be more representatives for people to align themselves with. there should be a business party that focuses soley on business, a pragmatic party that has no political ideology, an education party that focuses on education and training, we already have the greens with the environment. a copopertaive party, a health party, a housing party. that way when it comes to an election you can actually elect a group which most represents your interest for that particular election. i dont expect them to take power but if they get a seat their voice will be heard in parliament and the government of the day will need to secure their votes. theres no way a single party can represent your view on a broad spectrum of issues. parties usually claim a false mandate for all their policies simply because they won an election. if lets say 20% of the votes in parliament were made up of a series of loose parties, who concentrate on their own agenda, it would be more representative of what the public want at a particular time.
  9. the dividend yield doesnt really matter in terms of reinvestment, dividends are only really about how you want to be paid. if a company pays a 10p dividend then the share price will fall 10p to reflect the change in the value of the company. a company that dosnt pay much of a dividend will see its share price grow. arguably a company that doesnt pay a dividend is actually simply automatically reinvesting your money back into the company for you a la google, ebay, and formerly microsoft. so it just depends on whether you prefer to pay tax on dividends or capital gains. also a company with a current high paying dividend usually equates to a low share price, which as well as looking like a possibility of being underpriced, can also mean a company is struggling and that the future earnings of a company look poor. so its worth bearing in mind that a high dividend stock can also signify expected future weakness.
  10. that will probably happen. in any case the headline figure is usually just a small survey extrapolated to make the headlines. how many people actually carry out what they said in a survey. you would however expect applications to rise. the housing market in terms of sales has been suppressed for 6 years and there is probably some pent up demand for people to move, as people generally do like to move after a certain number of years.
  11. because to get paid a benefit you need to fit the criteria to receive it i.e you have to be out of a job. if you increase benefits you incentivise people to do what they are being paid for - which is to be out of a job, in the same way if you were paying people more to work, youre incentivising people to work. the key variable is what action are people being paid to do. for those on benefits, its to be out of work. so money is a incentive for both rich and poor, the difference between benefits and wages is simply what you are incentivising people to actually do.
  12. when you receive benefits you are being paid for doing nothing. if you reduce benefits you are reducing the incentive to do nothing. if i increase benefits i am increasing the incentive not to work. if i reduce earnings i reduce the incentive to work. if i increase earnings i increase the incentive to work. making people poorer is not the driver to make people work harder. if it was we would tax the poor more heavily.
  13. another possible problem is how high the CI is. is it enough to live a decent life? if so, then if we argue that land owners simply reap the rewards off others, so could people living off the CI. as society gets wealthier, land values go up in proportion. but as society gets richer, the CI goes up in proportion in a similar way. someone doing nothing reaps the benefits of other peoples work to live an easy life.
  14. on the contrary. money is the motivator for both the wealthy and the poor. increasing taxes reduces the incentive. if you cut benefits, you reduce the incentive to do nothing. no one believes increasing the taxes on the poor, and thus reducing their earnings, is a motivator.
  • 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.