Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

IMHAL

Members
  • Posts

    9,186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IMHAL

  1. If they are worried about RPI going below zero they should just increases IR - that will increase mortage costs and have the added bonus of upping RPI - what a bunch of numpties they are for spouting any ol shyte that appears before them. The news is so dumb these day.
  2. Good stuff Injin. The question is difficult - I personally will evade/avoid when I deem it to be far from fair - pretty subjective but there you go. I would have my day in court and stand up to the system in that case - but would only do so if I had all my assets parked up in another country (which I can do) so that my assets could not be forceably taken from me. Cowardly maybe but I see no point is losing out - I'd prefere to register my protest when I have nothing to lose (in this country). I suspect that many will only stand up to the system when they also have nothing left to lose.
  3. Sometimes I get angry - its a human trait . Capitalism - perfect? Depends what you mean by perfect. Capitalism is about allowing systems to grow fitter - its Darwinism for markets. But governments set the market rules and the players play within those rules (bank, businesses and people). The sensible rules where thrown out by politicians in favour of light touch. A sad fact of capitalism is that sometimes companies fail and that has a knock-on effect causing a recession - as I said before, this is part and parcel of the system. It a natural phenomena of the free market. What causes it to go ugly is when governments allow things to get out of hand (too much debt, too low interest rates) and twist the system so that they look good. Unfortunately this is a short term political win that is to the detriment of us all. The capitalist system needs a good and safe regulatory system for society to function reasonably. If we want fitter businesses and progress we must accept so some destruction of the weak businesses - but not so much so that it destroys society. For that to work governments need to have good regulations in place - the screwed up - the players in the system had no choice but to play by the rules or they would have themselves fallen behind.
  4. Because there was. Glass Stegall was repealled in 1999 - this made available savings deposits for investment purposes - so when credit was flowing freely and assets where rising then they made pots of money for shareholders by investing these svaings deposists (and the tax man made pots and the bosses made pots). If the banks did not play the game the CEO would have been voted down - shareholders wanted the gains - so in effect they had no option but to make those investments. Its only when the assets collapse that you see what a mess has been made. Governments relaxed the rules - you know, the same ones that get voted in by the people who delight in rising house prices. If Glass Stegall had remained then this mess would have not have had the legs to ruin everything. It would have been a shallow recession, same as the last one. Recsessions are actually good because they clean the system of bad businesses - they are needed. This one however is quite life threatening.
  5. You have some entrenched ideas about what capitalism means - that probably explains why you think some posts here 'bizarre'. Uber free market means that you have to be prepared to lets bad companies (and banks) go under. In order for that to be possible you would also either have to minimise the risk of banks failing (restrict lending to levels where they can cover loses that come about from time to time) or you would have to ensure that no bank is too large to fail or too interconnected to fail or any company too big to fail etc etc etc. You seem to be under the impression that governments have 'taken measures' to try to stop things going wild - they have done the exact opposite - they have let them go wild and only now are they talking about reigning it in (but they are still doing the opposite). I think you will find that there are few difference between what you want and what most of us want. The sticking point you seem to have come up against is the word 'capitalist' - which has conveniently been used as a scapegoat term to cover up for what they must do to cover up for their mistakes (i.e. socialise the loses).
  6. Ok - lets ask you a couple of questions. Who controls the regulator system? Who controls the laws of the land that say what is legal and what is not - specifically in trade and finance? Who do you think let the leesh off finance? (that was working pretty well up till then). I think you will find that governments for their own selfish reasons let a now under regulated system go wild and then let it go wild some more with the help/pressure on central banks to 'make the problem go away' with stupidly low interest rates. They are still doing it - they are printing, low interest rates - calls for more lending. The free market is trying the pull back but governments are forcing them to lend - to anyone at all regardless of the credit risk they pose. See Northern Crock for a good example. Markets have no option but to play the game according to the rules set - the rules are set by law and laws are made by politicians. Just like people had little choice but to buy houses at inflated prices - because the loose money made them expensive with money that banks where willing to lend becuase of the rules set by politicians (so that they could get re-elected). You really do need to step it up a level before you see what is plain.
  7. You still are not appreciating the direction of this thread - what is being called for is that the non-jobs are eradicated - diversity officers and other too numerous to mention middle managers that have been put in post over the last ten years - couple that with the untold number of consultants and quangos. If you got rid of those there would be hugh savings. This is what (speaks for self) I am proposing. This is not a get rid of the public sector across the board proposal - that would be silly. There is lots and lots of waste - its criminal to have people doing jobs that are not needed, especially at this time. Also - if things did get so bad as to have to cut more costs then reduced working might be an option across the board - but first things first - cut the fat. I would also suggest that a reduction in pay would be appropriate in some cases - Doctors for example have had eyewatering pay rises for less work - teachers less so but I still think they got rises better than the private sector and so I would not be opposed to my wifes salary being reduced. Public sector managers and middle managers need their pay severly cut back. Edited to answer your question on the redundancy money: The answer is simple - its cheaper to pay redundancy than to keep employing the same people. Lets say you get 6 months redundancy - its pays for itself, especially if the posts are suplus to requirements. Also there is no law that says expensive redundancy is necessary - it can be the legal minimum and it should be - so this would make it much much cheaper than keeping the same people on.
  8. You highlighted some words where I said they should be sacked - I did not say that they should not be paid redundancy in that note - I repeated this again later - it was YOUR interpretation (please feel free to check) - I believe I have explained myself (more than once). Yet to keep bringing this up Your 4 day week does not address the issue - that of over 1 million recruited to be employed in non jobs in the public sector - sorry but its dafter than a daft dumbo on a daft day. I have to say, you sound like a Labour troll - you say you are not and I believe you - but you seem to argue like one.
  9. It does'nt seem to matter how many times it is said - they aint listening. They just can't see that they are the problem and a bigger state aint the solution.
  10. First rate post! That is true perspective - McFalan/Cogs are you listening. As many have said before - true front line workers are essential and valued - its the Labour recruited hanger'oners that are loathed and should be shed - NOW.
  11. The private sector failed because governments wanted lax regulation and set up a system where failure was assured. Greed and corruption was allways come out of a corrupt and immoral government. What we need to wake up to is a failed government - one that would do anything to stay in power, including letting the financial sector run riot so that the feel good factor of rising assets keep them in power. That has now spectacularlly unwound - the governments are at fault - they know it and we know it.
  12. It is perfectly possible to refuse to progress an application even before it is offered. I know full well that it would have been offered. To be taken seriously by the likes of you would be very worrying for me . I look forward to your vacant ramblings
  13. Most parasites live off their relunctant host - neither bleeding them too much or too little. They need the host to survive so that they can continue feeding. So by my reckoning Labour are not only parasites but failed ones at that - they end up bleeding their hosts dry. Its always the same - all the while grumbling that they don't have enough blood to feed on whilst the host lies dying. You got the likes of MyNumpty, the Millipeed brothers, Jackboot Jaqui and countless other chip on shoulder Labour scammers filling their coffers at the taxpayers expense - all claiming that 'they have not broken the rules' - oh please 'we have done nothing wrong'. Bunch of morally corrupt pigs eating the hands that feed them. Personally I can't wait to get this scum out of office and all their hanger-oners put back on the dole.
  14. I refused to attend the interview - I was the only one who requested the application form. They called me and more or less pleaded that I attend. They have lots of our money you see and need to fill the ranks with Labour supporting &ss wipes. I guess you are trying to cast aspersions on my sincerity - I dislike that. But then again your user name gives away your style of cheap swipes and zero substance - that is not meant as an insult - just fact.
  15. Where do I go to claim my £17k to visit my mum? They really are shysters of the first degree - can't wait to see the back of the parasitic lot of them.
  16. Why did I apply? To get the full job spec of course - as I said @rse lick, box tick and nose pick. Appalling. I find everyone who thinks that the current level of public sector employment, renumeration and benefits are somehow justified is a part of the problem. Oh and it is quite clear that Labour are employing professional trolls to frequent forums to swing opinion - at the tax payers expense. There has been quite a surge in Labour supporting spin trolls recently - so I have my suspicions and suspects.
  17. I agree - the state uses forced to demand taxes - its how they work - its a statement of fact.
  18. Sometimes we look around to see whats on offer ; And what there was on offer was a waste of public money, a degrading combination of @rse licking, box ticking and nose picking - not what I would call productive. I see the Labour spin trolls are out in force tho - nice to see some don't set high standards in their choice of employment - parasite and blood suckers only need apply.
  19. Here is a wild guess - you are a Labour supporter, are employed in the public sector and work in the non-productive part, probably as a diversity relations team lead and member of some quango that advises government on how much more money you need because you are worth it. Or possibly as a professional Labour troll to frequent forums and spread the party line. I have no problem with the public sector, my wife is a teacher. I have a problem with the million or so employed in the last 10 years to do non-jobs as Labour stools. By my reckoning you are such a stool and turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
  20. I was not advocating non payment of redundacy - you misread. But I stand by the fact that ALL the fat needs to be trimmed - for political expediency that may have to happen over a period that is longer than 'instantly' - but happen it must. We cannot afford to keep non essential public sector workers employed at the best of times, and certainly not for politically motivated reasons (like Labours client state agenda).
  21. It seems that you like the idea of keeping useless idiots in jobs at the tax payers expense - the only arguement you put forward against shedding these parasites are 'its difficult to do' or 'it will cause political hassle'. When the public sector is capable of holding the country to randsom its time to get rid of the politicians in charge. You seem to think that they hold sway and all of them are 'essential' - you have to remember that WE pay their wages - and unless you have failed to notice WE are being hammered - so you had better manage your selves in the tax payers interest or WE will get a tad p1ssed off. The state has to be hacked back to size - politicians are paid to keep the state on an even keel - let them do their job and start hacking - or die trying as the saying goes. Don't be a brake on the inevitable - what needs to happen will happen and cannot be stopped - because it cannot be afforded.
  22. Well I agree that it has to be more nuanced - but fact is about 25-30% of the public sector can be shed and no one would notice. I also think that you could cut salary expenditure by a similar amount and you'd still have most of the public parasites clinging onto their jobs for dear life because they know that they cannot get by in the real world. So lets start cutting the fat now and see how far we can go before they prefer to find jobs in to the private sector. After all they are public servants and they should be doing this for love of their country and its people (as if).
×
×
  • 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.