Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mfp123

  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
  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 rebal
  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 o
  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
  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
  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.
  15. if we want to live in a meritocratic society penalising those that work hard and earn more from their efforts isnt the answer. a land tax makes more sense because the value of land goes up without people contributing anything. if i own a derelict house and other people build a society around me, people setup bars, restaurants, shops, offices, my neighbours keep their houses and gardens in good order, the land value goes up, , i gain without contributing anything. if society gets wealthier, people work their asses off and gdp doubles in 5 years, i get wealthier, my land value may double, ha
  16. the problem of providing a high guaranteed income is that jobs dont just exist. someone has to start a business to create those jobs. 50% of employment comes from small businesses. the key issue is whether they can attract workers if what they offer you will only give you a marginal rise in living standard. if you are taxed heavily, how much would a small business need to offer you for you to take that job? lets say tax was high at 70% to create a more equal society. a business would need to pay you 40k a year for you to earn an extra £12k a year. so when people say high tax wont affect m
  17. the main issues of a citizens income would be the scrapping of targeted benefits: should a millionaire get a citizens income? should a single person get the same as a mother with 3 kids? but on a technical level it makes little sense to have a universal benefit. you are either a net payer or a net receiver of tax. its pointless paying tax with one hand and taking it back with the other. a minimum income guarantee i think would be slightly different to a citizens income.
  18. is too late by and large because people are using ecigs and reading the news online. how are they going to get around that one in spain. force people into the shops?
  19. given that though, when you know the game is rigged, is it wrong to buy? were essentially seeing a socialist policy to maintain the status quo of high prices. as you say, someone buying in london even at the 2007 peak will have been better off buying even at that peak because the system is manipulated, so ignoring if you think that prices will fall for one second, if you knew that you would be better of in say 5 years time even though you think prices are ridiculous, would you buy? for example with help to buy, i and everyone else thinks is a bad policy, but at the same time i also think it
  20. yes it can be misleading. for example, if someone from France deposits £100 into a UK bank account, the UK's debt just went up by £100...
  21. when a bank increases the LTV requirement its generally to reflect the greater risk of default. the higher the risk, the higher the interest rate they will charge you as a price of that risk. if the government is guaranteeing the first 15% of the risk, then its less risky to the bank in terms of losing money so in theory they will offer you a lower rate of interest. they will now be more likely to offer someone with a 5% deposit, the equivalent interest rate of a someone paying a 20% deposit. by and large its number 3, a bank bailout to cover any losses.
  22. minimum wage should be flexible. smaller businesses should be treated differently from a multinational. if you employ less than 10 people there should be one rate. less than 50 people another minimum rate and more than 50 people another minimum rate.
  23. anything made with flour is bad for you really. calories in 100g of flour 366 calories in 100g pure sugar 389 imagine instead of eating a cake, you pour pure sugar into a bowl and eat it with a teaspoon. you pretty much eat the same amount of calories pound for pound.
  24. bread in the supermarket tastes awful these days. it use to be quality, but i suspect corners have been cut in the ingredients to keep prices down. kingsmill and hovis use to be super soft, now its like eating cardboard.
  • 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.