TheUsualSuspect

I suspect nobody. The Government will not allow house prices to collapse as they now own the banks. If the banks' assets collapse, so do the Government's (namely our) assets. Quantative Easing will come back in order to prop up house pricing in the next 6 months.

Not enough people have read anything by either Mises, Hayek or Marx, nor any other commentator to actually comment. (One thing I notice from the above quote from the original piece is the abstraction to Russia, which was not a Marxist state) The "interventionism" proposed by Mises is more recognised by the modern term of Free-Market-Liberalism (aka Anarchy). That is the system we live under. A system calling itself one-thing, yet behaving in a recognisably Anarchistic way in which freedom of choice (and action) is very lowly regulated. Irrespective of the use of taxes and their pursuance to "further the goals of the welfare state", their real use has been to create an environment of abandomnent of personal responsibility (namely Anarchism). The goals of capitalism can be narrowed down to self-reliance and a preservation of capital within ever-narrowing circles, Marxism on it's offer of ultimate opportunity to all bythe constant renewal of the social structure. Neither fit in with the current system. His conclusions, which are the last line of the quote are false. They do not create "transformation of capitalism into socialism by a series of successive steps". Rather, they create a dissolution of community to the advantage of the dying ends of capitalism. His conclusion is wrong. Socialism will only prosper once capitalism has fully killed itself and the options are barbarism or societal breakdown... as Marx somewhat tangenitally proposed.

Ah the apologists crawl out from their shells. Playing their full-hand of Poker. Nobody, repeat nobody would not want genuine entrepeneurs to create genuine wealth for a country, The problem is that many, if not most of the businesses that are established under the current system do not. They increase velocity of money, feeding off credit bubbles. They are speculators. The fact that doubling (or even trebling) labour rates is nonsensical seems to have crept into the psyche of the apologists. Why not pay fair rates, namely extracting the profit motive that they are taking for doing no work themselves aside from speculation ? And then let's, for another feint of the hips draw in an 'African' analogy. Despite it' overt racist tones, one cannot question what is meant by 'going Africa' without resorting to these apologists inherent beliefs. And finally, the 'retire at 25'. Nobody should retire at 25. For each unto their ability. The current system of Capitalism enjoys having the underclass. They enjoy it because it motivates that for every job there will be 10, 20, 30 people who will attempt to gain it. The race to the bottom is inherent in their thoughts. So long as they are not affected. And when they finally pop off this mortal coil, why, who will inherit their wealth.... their children... what age will they be able to retire ?

If someone is paying you 82K per annum when you have self-confessed poor Visual Basic skills as you suggest, then you are very lucky. Well done. You've beaten the Capitalists at their own game. I personally earn over 450 thousand a year and I have 3 degrees. Does that make me better or worse than you ? Does my economic potency make me a bigger person ? I don't understand it when people say "I didn't read the rest of your post because....*insert insult here*". Do they not realise that the assumption is that they have no answer to the meat of the post i.e. the whole point of posting ? I'm not interested in what you earn, the whole point of my post was the rest of it that you've dismissed as "clueless". Why so ? Why not actually debate that rather than thrusting assertions of your economic importance.

That is an equality of outcomes. It's the very same problem that exists in many spheres and the "snobbery" that you suggest towards it shows how de-specialised so many spheres of expertise have become. I would prefer my Programmers to know what they are doing, not just claim "the mishmash of two letter variables" is something they don't understand and assume it doesn't matter. In the same way that I would like my Doctor to know what that "red thing.... kind of pumping out blood" is a heart.

Who created that adage or rather the society that believes such individualistic rhetoric ? The skeleton of modern Britain always points it's boney finger in the same direction.

Aside from the naivete of someone believing Visual Basic is a good skill, the idea that employees "don't want to train one" is emblematic. They have needs, but don't want to pay. It's cheaper to get an Indian chap/chapess to do it. And yet the talk is of creating a Britain that can export and thrive. It''s this short-term thinking that has got us into such a mess. Everyone taking short-term profits and dealing in speculation. Until a state controlled plan for how the country should function exists and this removal of short-term gambling is eliminated then we will, as a country, continue to decline. And for anyone thinking that state-controlled planning doesn't work, let's look at how well China is doing right now ? If we don't pull our thumb out of our collective arses, then we can have all the freedoms we like, but we'll all be sharing a turnip over a soup made of yesterday's rain-water.

And that my friend sums it up perfectly. A race towards the bottom, and because the 'over-qualified' UK problem refuse to do menial jobs then it excuses unfettered immigration. The Capitalists know what they're doing. Shame that no-one else can see it and just worry about buying their 'dream house' at 'rock bottom prices'. But lets not worry. We can all assume that the 'swingeing cuts' that must be made by the next government will be met with open arms when they come into play. Little 'Jo and Joanna' at the University of Crudchester deserve their place. They're worth it, they damned well earnt it.... Let the plebs get riled over peanuts, whilst the Oligarchs pick your pockets.

"The problem from the company’s point of view, then, is that its workers are too loyal; it wants cheap labor that doesn’t hang around too long, but not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits. Among the policy changes the memo suggested to deal with this problem was a shift to hiring more part-time workers, which “will lower Wal-Mart’s health care enrollment.”" Therein lies the problem. It's workers are too loyal... it wants cheap labour. A lovely little line about the problem being "but not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages and benefits." Loyalty is a dirty word for these companies. They exploit labour with the charm of Herpes. Mind you at least they're honest about what they are.

Ah, the sweet sound of Oligarchs telling the proles what's in their best interest. How wise they are. When will those graduates "condemned" to serving coffee wake up and realise they've been sold a lie. There is the rub. I wonder which person is going to tell their kids to not get a University education now that everyone has been brainwashed into thinking they are the Bourgeouis ?

Aside from the percentages not adding up .... "27 percent report having less than $1,000 in savings, 43 percent say they have less than $10,000 set aside, and more than half (54 percent) have less than $25,000 saved". I'm personally dubious about those figures in particular as they relate to retirement funds. They sound like a clarion call to ignorant people to either save more or just another media attempt to butter up the serfs that they're going to have to work for longer, which in the longer term will mean a rise in the age that retirement will come about. If "everybody" is going to have to work longer, then why shouldn't the pension age rise to 70 ? I can see the pronouncement now. And then a few 'prudent' people on sites like this will whinge about how unfair it all is. Open your bloody eyes to this robbery. The statistics are lies. YOU are being robbed blind. It's similar to the 'public sector cuts' mantra that has been played out by the media. No debate, no discussion, but if you carry out a poll now then most people are in favour of cuts, even though the 'prudent' public sector workers are being sacrificed to bail out the bankers. The shepherds of serfdom are so obvious in a crisis. More hidden during a boom.

No offence, but I'm not sure what you're talking about or what point you're trying to make to be honest. Answering points in sarcastic/cryptic terms is something I'm not really used to. It just seems diversionary and rather pointless. If you have a point to make then please make it in clear terms and I'll be happy to debate/discuss/cogitate.

That doesn't make any sense. It seems more of a personal point of view than investment advice, which is what the the original question was and you seem to be buying/selling Gold in a different currency to me. How can an ounce of Gold bought at (say) 2 pounds Sterling be worth more if the currency has dropped in value to (say) 1.5 pounds Sterling in exchange ? Granted I have the same amount in Sterling, but it buys less. I sold my Gold over a year ago and invested in the Stock Market. For me I follow Warren Buffet's method of investing... "If the shoeshine boy says buy <commodity x>, then it's time to sell". If I do a cursory glance at the current value of what my Gold sold for I would have made more in Fiat terms, but taking into account a 25% depreciation in the Pound I have made more of a return by selling it then re-investing it. Namely, the stock market has gone up 50% as opposed to the 40% you state for Gold. Hence my point that I can now buy more Gold than I originally had by divesting of it and going into other investments. The argument about Gold with regards to demand is speculation. So long as some people are determined it will go up in value then it will continue to rise in (Fiat) value. That doesn't necessarily mean it is a good investment, nor any better than more liquid than stocks and shares. I agree to some extent with the idea that it was a great way to make Fiat money, but I doubt at the moment it's useable for exchange. I'd be surprised if Tesco would take Sovereigns when the wife does the weekly shop, It's just a commodity with no inherent value until you sell it for Fiat/Paper/Conch shell money.

You do realise that you're on a site where many people actually sold their houses so that they could bank the profits so as to buy cheaper later ? How much deflation is there in a PC these days ? There was a time where if you bought one, then you knew full well it would be half-price the following year. Writeable-DVD players are the prime example. When they first came out they were over £1000, now they're £50 ?? Ultimately, you're comparing apples and oranges. Namely a 'want', rather than a 'need'. Buddha

Thanks for the insults and the welcome. I have read the OilDrum on a regular basis for years (as I have this site for the last 4). It has one aim in mind, to promote Peak Oil awareness. It's achieved it. Burying one's head in the sand is a fine insult to bandy about, but you've not addressed any of the issues I've put to you. I'll ask another one that you will obviously clarify for my poor delusional mind in an instant, as you know so much about the issue, namely why has the Oil Price followed a linear path correlated to inflation ?

Anyone buying Gold has lost 25% of the price they paid already due to Sterling devaluation. Anyone buying in Dollars may have done OK. At the end of the day, you could buy Gold last year for (approximately) $800, and it's now $1100 ?? The Stock market has risen 50% in the same period. Anyone investing in Gold was either a survivalist (who in my opinion would've been better off buying Woodland and building an underground hut) or just someone who read on the internet about it. There are far better returns around than Gold, so invest in them and then buy the Gold. You can't eat it and if the muck does hit the fan, you'd be better off having a secret 12-guage than a lump of metal that anyone will try to extract from you at the first opportunity (perhaps because they invested in a 12-guage).

Bring on deflation ? In a consumer based economy, such that we have, it doesn't mean that TV's just get cheaper. There will be no demand for anything. Consumers just stop buying as they know the price will be cheaper tomorrow. It's also why governments will do anything to prevent it, it means the end-game. Read up about deflationary-spirals and if you think that means you'll get your dream house you're deluded. Deflation means that debt just gets wiped out, less consumption, less employment, less taxes. Deflation is a wipe out of asset prices to their "real" value. In a society where money has lost all relation to value it would mean unemployment on an enormous scale.It will not spare savers either in Ireland nor anywhere else as the chances are extremely high you'll have huge inflation on commodities as they also return to their real value. Essentials such as food, oil and clothing will all go through the roof in 'price' if we end up in a deflationary period. Be very, very careful what you wish for.

Is the oildrum a site dedicated to apocalyptic warnings about Peak oil ? How surprising that they predict what you want to hear. Broaden what you read. They were predicting peak oil years ago. No-one is in any doubt that it will happen, but just banging on about the same thing is like the boy with his finger in the dyke. The reasons for poverty are not caused by oil running out, they're caused by your good old friends 'the Capitalists'. They've misallocated resources for decades, do you really think that if Oil was running out they wouldn't exploit it more ? $50 spikes on a barrel are not a sign that it's running out, that can be put down to speculation. The sign of peak-oil is when prices rise linearly at way above inflation rises. It's likely the end of a Capitalist society unless another energy source is discovered. There's a reason that cars have 'Horse-Power' in their marketing bumff.

Apologies to you. I didn't catch the inflection of irony. I have not been on this site for some time and found the tone of some discussions more apathetic than genuinely concerned. To be honest, I think that the whole idea of a site dedicated to a House Price Crash rather redundant, so I never posted much as it's a test-tube of ideas rather than having the whole laboratory at one's disposal.

I think the 'common man' is very much aware of these indicators thank you very much. It's called common-sense and generally comes from the fact that credit was not available. As far as I can tell, it's the 'Middle Classes' and their take up of debt at the Casino wheel that are in denial/ignorance of any form of knowledge. One day, hopefully soon, the 'Middle-Classes' will realise that their elevation to the lofty spires of new-cars, 4-bedroom houses and a fridge full of food that is chucked out because it 'looks a bit iffy' will realise that they are just as 'common' as the next man. There is no 'Middle-class', nor common man. There are the Proletariat and the Bourgeousie. Many of the the latter just do not realise that their invite to the table was temporary.

Why would be in so much trouble of the bankers left ? They've taken more from the bailouts than they've paid in taxes over the last decade. As for the usual suspects of diversity officers/managers etc. How many of them actually are there ? How much will one save ? It's easy to pick unsubstantiated claims that cutting such people will achieve a goal of saving, it's harder to state what savings are actually to be made. If the suggestion is that all savings can be made through cuts in the Public Sector I suspect you will find, as have every political party, that the vast majority of the outgoings are in the NHS and Education (which certain parties have ring-fenced). If 10% cuts (say) are to be made and these 2 edifices are exempt it increases the amount other sectors have to cut. Fire services, Police, Military ?? Stop throwing about 'Diversity Officers' as the problem and face up to facts. A 10% cut in the public sector will affect frontline services and have a knock on effect in those private sector industries that are outsourced by the government. Cut the bankers. Stop their cancerous growth and nationalise the whole shebang. They create no wealth, they don't even add value and they are vastly over paid. It's ironic that on a forum dedicated to a House Price Crash, that people are defending such parasites.

Nobody does at the moment. Anyone who claims to be an expert through such uncertain times is either deluded or a snake-oil salesman. Or perhaps a "Master of the Universe" Banker ? 1/Physics is impossibly difficult to understand at it's furthest reaches. 2/Medicine is important. 3/Engineering is much respected. 4/Banking is guesswork (as is Economics). I'm quite happy to not understand 1-3, but point 4 should be a bloke in a Bowler hat who looks after my money. Not a combination of 1-3.

The biggest potential drain on this country is the bankers bailout. They are now in the Public Sector. Why are they not bearing the brunt of the cuts ? But let's not worry about that, lets blame the day-to-day Public Sector employees. Did you notice the part of the article that said ...... "The firm announced 8,000 worldwide redundancies in January, following more than 12,000 posts going as part of earlier efficiency plans." Yes, the UK has lost some jobs, but other countries have also lost some. But, ignore the facts, let's kick the Public Sector who generally earn below the average wage. That way we'll all benefit.

It's largely irrelevant what Gordon Brown or Call-me-Dave suggests. The seeds of this disaster were planted years ago when it was realised by monetarists there was only one way to avoid the problem of decreasing profit in order to sustain wealth. The chickens have now come home to roost. Namely, the formerly cheap deflationary nations want a cut of the action. Oh no ! How unfair ! You cannot expand wealth by printing paper money that has no relation to assets or commodities. We have no assets of value other than their worth as shelter or farmland, but we sure have a lot of paper money. What will happen next I wonder ? The debt will not be repaid, it will be written off. Asset prices will be forced to readjust to their 'real' value, which in the case of the UK is a load of box-rooms on a cold island with no resources and a population with a sense of entitlement. It doesn't bode well.

"The Bank of England is seeking to raise funds as confidence in the U.K. currency plummets on concern no party will win an outright majority in a forthcoming general election." The BoE leading the way in restoring faith in Sterling then I wonder when the buy-one-get-one-free on UK bonds will start ?