Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ska_mna

The Revolution Of Capitalism

Recommended Posts

I've been meaning to post this since last week. If you didn't hear John Gray's Point of View on BBC Radio 4 last week, it's thoroughly worth a listen:

The revolution of capitalism

Sunday, 4th September

John Gray on why an increasing number of people believe that Karl Marx was right.

Listen again here >

I've transcribed a few sections from it (more than I set out to actually!!):

*****

"In 19th Century capitalism, most people had nothing. But as capitalism evolves, it's defenders say, increasing numbers of people will be able to benefit from it. Fulfilling careers will no longer be the prerogative of the few. No more will people struggle to live from month to month on an insecure wage. Protected by savings, a house they own and a decent pension, they'll be able to plan their lives without fear. Everybody can be middle class."

"In fact, in Britain, the US and many other developed countries over the past 20-30 years, the opposite has been happening. Job security doesn't exist, the trades and professions of the past have largely gone and life-long careers are barely memories. If people have any wealth, it's in their houses, but house prices don't always increase. When credit is tight, as it is now, they can be stagnant for years. A dwindling minority can count on a pension on which they could comfortably live. Not many have significant savings. More and more, people live day-to-day with little idea of what the future may bring. Middle class people used to think their lives unfolded in an orderly progression, but it's no longer possible to look at life as a succession of stages, in which each is a step up from the last. In the process of creative destruction, the ladder has been kicked away and for increasing numbers of people, a middle class existence is no longer an aspiration."

"As capitalism has advanced, it's returned most people to a new version of the precarious existence of Marx's proles. Our incomes are far higher and in some degree we're cushioned against shocks by what remains of the post-war welfare state. But we have very little effective control over the course of our lives and the uncertainty in which we must live is being worsened by policies devised to deal with the financial crisis. Zero interest rates alongside rising prices means you are getting a negative return on your money and over time your capital will have been eroded."

"The situation of many younger people is even worse. In order to acquire the skills you need, you'll have to go into debt. Since at some point you'll have to retrain, you should try to save, but if you're indebted from the start, that's the last thing you'll be able to do. Whatever their age, the prospect facing most people today is a lifetime of insecurity"

"Capitalism has made the type of person who lived the bourgeois life obsolete"

"It is the person who borrows heavily and isn't afraid to declare bankruptcy that survives and goes on to prosper"

"In a society that's being continually transformed by market forces, traditional values are dysfunctional and anyone who tries to live by them risks ending up on the scrapheap"

"The risks that threatened to freeze the world economy 3 years ago haven't been dealt with, they've simply been shifted to states. Whatever politicians may tell us about the need to curb the deficit, debts on the scale that have been run up can't be repaid; almost certainly they will be inflated away, a process that is bound to be painful and impoverishing for many."

"[Karl Marx] hated the bourgeois life and looked to communism to destroy it. And just has he predicted, the bourgeois world has been destroyed… but it wasn't communism that did the deed: it's capitalism that has killed off the bourgeoisie."

*****

Edited by ska_mna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the contradictions and paradoxes that capitalism creates, it was bound to destroy itself. The pursuit of profit especially by the large corporations has ripped a huge hole in the capitalist system, globalisation was all about the lower common denominator wages.

Once you add in unsustainable debt the edifice will collapse.

Greed destroys all.

Edited by interestrateripoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism resulted in greed and theft. Yes, Marx was correct about that.

But If Marx was right about everything, why arent we seeing the rise of the workers, and the first proletariat run state?

And what makes anyone think they would be better off under a Marxist Government?

When Marx himself subscribed to the belief in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'

And every dictator who has subscribed to Marxism, has twisted it to suit their own views...Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot etc etc [You know, The biggest mass murderers in history.....]

The only place Ive seen this 'Marx was right yippeee' angle is from the BBC...........surprise, surprise.

Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find attacking Capitalism whole-heartedly quite hard to be honest, as I think as a system it suits us as humans with complex needs and emotions much better than communism. I mean, if you get into a debate and start attacking Capitalism you'll get pointed to Communism with a comment such as "well, it's certainly better than that was". And they'd be right.

I guess, like most things in life, the perfect system is not black and white. It's somewhere in the grey zone between socialist and capitalist ideals.

I'd count myself as a backer of captalism and free markets, but only to an extent. There has got to be regulation, but confusingly, it's got to be the right kind of regulation. The wrong kind of regulation being that which turns free-markets into corporate rackets and oligarchies.

Is this possible to achieve though? Is Capitalism doomed always eventually end up polarising and eventually collapsing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But If Marx was right about everything, why arent we seeing the rise of the workers, and the first proletariat run state?

And what makes anyone think they would be better off under a Marxist Government?

When Marx himself subscribed to the belief in the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'

The only place Ive seen this 'Marx was right yippeee' angle coming from is the, [aherm], impartial BBC.......surprise surprise

Oh come on, you're reading what you want to read here and having a good ol' BBC bash. I didn't hear anything in the recording that made me think the guy was saying "Communism = good". In fact, he was actually saying Marx was wrong. He's saying Capitalism destroyed the middle classes, not Communism as Marx proclaimed.

By the way, this article is quite a good one on the "Was Marx RIght?" subject. Hugely divisive question, that's for sure. I've been meaning to read that guy's book too, The New Capitalist Manifesto: Building a Disruptively Better Business, which by all accounts argues for reinventing Captalism for the 21st century. I think that's probably more along the right lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on, you're reading what you want to read here and having a good ol' BBC bash. I didn't hear anything in the recording that made me think the guy was saying "Communism = good". In fact, he was actually saying Marx was wrong. He's saying Capitalism destroyed the middle classes, not Communism as Marx proclaimed.

I havent listened to it TBH.

It was discussed last week here:

http://www.housepric...howtopic=168785

Anarchism makes the best sense to me.

Edited by Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find attacking Capitalism whole-heartedly quite hard to be honest, as I think as a system it suits us as humans with complex needs and emotions much better than communism. I mean, if you get into a debate and start attacking Capitalism you'll get pointed to Communism with a comment such as "well, it's certainly better than that was". And they'd be right.

I guess, like most things in life, the perfect system is not black and white. It's somewhere in the grey zone between socialist and capitalist ideals.

I'd count myself as a backer of captalism and free markets, but only to an extent. There has got to be regulation, but confusingly, it's got to be the right kind of regulation. The wrong kind of regulation being that which turns free-markets into corporate rackets and oligarchies.

Is this possible to achieve though? Is Capitalism doomed always eventually end up polarising and eventually collapsing?

If people want regulation, they will seek it.

For instance, if you want to know that the food you eat is good, you only go to a place where a third party has vouched for it (need not be the government). If you want to ensure a building is safe, you ensure it complies with a good set of standards as proposed by a third party. Those businesses who comply, should wear this like a badge, helping both you and them - it's mutually beneficial.

However, many things don't need regulating. In fact, it can be very damaging, as it results in a false sense of safety. Take banking, for instance. You lend the banks more when you deposit it and you should be well aware of the risks. With the government guaranteeing and (supposedly) regulating them, it lead people into a false sense of security and much of this crisis is a result of this. I think you agree on this point.

Bad regulation should be rejected by competition, in the same way as the services are. If you have a government monopoly on regulation, with mistakes funded by tax payers and bailouts, it is a recipe for disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent listened to it TBH.

It was discussed last week here:

http://www.housepric...howtopic=168785

Anarchism makes the best sense to me.

Agreed.

I think Marx got it wrong, as he was looking in the wrong place for the problem. It wasn't capitalism as such that was flawed, but the statism that it spawned from. Statism is what has caused the ever larger booms and busts, not the free market*. Statism has lead to the bailing out the corporates and the rich, at the expense of of the working and middle classes. Democracy itself, where the majority rule the minority, has also shown itself to be deeply flawed. However, statism has caused the failure of democracy to be so utterly destructive.

It isn't so much that communism or capitalism is bad, but the way that statism uses force to implement either. There is nothing wrong with people volunteering to pool resources into a community. There is nothing wrong with individuals and/or communities trading in a free market. What is wrong is the violent nature of statism, which forces people into one way of life or the other, destroying their liberties, stealing their property and threatening their lives.

If the peak of our civilisation can only be maintained through the barrel of a gun, we are far from civilised at all.

* Many of the imbalances in the world are due to poor policy, leading us further away from balance. Decisions were made for the short term, to win votes, rather than working to improve the lives of us all in long term. Sad, but inevitable; when people look to and lobby for big government to 'do something', the nanny state always gladly obliges.

[EDIT: BTW, it is interesting that communism/socialism was originally seen as an anarchist/revolutionary idea and it was anti-state. Unfortunately, many were seduced by the state as a mechanism to destroy it 'from within', but then promptly became part of the machine they formally despised. It is about time the original revolutionary thoughts returned, with the state being crushed for good this time.]

Edited by Traktion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meaning to post this since last week. If you didn't hear John Gray's Point of View on BBC Radio 4 last week, it's thoroughly worth a listen:

The revolution of capitalism

Sunday, 4th September

John Gray on why an increasing number of people believe that Karl Marx was right.

Listen again here >

I've transcribed a few sections from it (more than I set out to actually!!):

*****

"In 19th Century capitalism, most people had nothing. But as capitalism evolves, it's defenders say, increasing numbers of people will be able to benefit from it. Fulfilling careers will no longer be the prerogative of the few. No more will people struggle to live from month to month on an insecure wage. Protected by savings, a house they own and a decent pension, they'll be able to plan their lives without fear. Everybody can be middle class."

"In fact, in Britain, the US and many other developed countries over the past 20-30 years, the opposite has been happening. Job security doesn't exist, the trades and professions of the past have largely gone and life-long careers are barely memories. If people have any wealth, it's in their houses, but house prices don't always increase. When credit is tight, as it is now, they can be stagnant for years. A dwindling minority can count on a pension on which they could comfortably live. Not many have significant savings. More and more, people live day-to-day with little idea of what the future may bring. Middle class people used to think their lives unfolded in an orderly progression, but it's no longer possible to look at life as a succession of stages, in which each is a step up from the last. In the process of creative destruction, the ladder has been kicked away and for increasing numbers of people, a middle class existence is no longer an aspiration."

"As capitalism has advanced, it's returned most people to a new version of the precarious existence of Marx's proles. Our incomes are far higher and in some degree we're cushioned against shocks by what remains of the post-war welfare state. But we have very little effective control over the course of our lives and the uncertainty in which we must live is being worsened by policies devised to deal with the financial crisis. Zero interest rates alongside rising prices means you are getting a negative return on your money and over time your capital will have been eroded."

"The situation of many younger people is even worse. In order to acquire the skills you need, you'll have to go into debt. Since at some point you'll have to retrain, you should try to save, but if you're indebted from the start, that's the last thing you'll be able to do. Whatever their age, the prospect facing most people today is a lifetime of insecurity"

"Capitalism has made the type of person who lived the bourgeois life obsolete"

"It is the person who borrows heavily and isn't afraid to declare bankruptcy that survives and goes on to prosper"

"In a society that's being continually transformed by market forces, traditional values are dysfunctional and anyone who tries to live by them risks ending up on the scrapheap"

"The risks that threatened to freeze the world economy 3 years ago haven't been dealt with, they've simply been shifted to states. Whatever politicians may tell us about the need to curb the deficit, debts on the scale that have been run up can't be repaid; almost certainly they will be inflated away, a process that is bound to be painful and impoverishing for many."

"[Karl Marx] hated the bourgeois life and looked to communism to destroy it. And just has he predicted, the bourgeois world has been destroyed… but it wasn't communism that did the deed: it's capitalism that has killed off the bourgeoisie."

*****

so he hasn't twigged that he's really talking about corporatism,not capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I think Marx got it wrong, as he was looking in the wrong place for the problem. It wasn't capitalism as such that was flawed, but the statism that it spawned from. Statism is what has caused the ever larger booms and busts, not the free market*. Statism has lead to the bailing out the corporates and the rich, at the expense of of the working and middle classes. Democracy itself, where the majority rule the minority, has also shown itself to be deeply flawed. However, statism has caused the failure of democracy to be so utterly destructive.

It isn't so much that communism or capitalism is bad, but the way that statism uses force to implement either. There is nothing wrong with people volunteering to pool resources into a community. There is nothing wrong with individuals and/or communities trading in a free market. What is wrong is the violent nature of statism, which forces people into one way of life or the other, destroying their liberties, stealing their property and threatening their lives.

If the peak of our civilisation can only be maintained through the barrel of a gun, we are far from civilised at all.

* Many of the imbalances in the world are due to poor policy, leading us further away from balance. Decisions were made for the short term, to win votes, rather than working to improve the lives of us all in long term. Sad, but inevitable; when people look to and lobby for big government to 'do something', the nanny state always gladly obliges.

[EDIT: BTW, it is interesting that communism/socialism was originally seen as an anarchist/revolutionary idea and it was anti-state. Unfortunately, many were seduced by the state as a mechanism to destroy it 'from within', but then promptly became part of the machine they formally despised. It is about time the original revolutionary thoughts returned, with the state being crushed for good this time.]

+1 good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people want regulation, they will seek it.

For instance, if you want to know that the food you eat is good, you only go to a place where a third party has vouched for it (need not be the government). If you want to ensure a building is safe, you ensure it complies with a good set of standards as proposed by a third party. Those businesses who comply, should wear this like a badge, helping both you and them - it's mutually beneficial.

However, many things don't need regulating. In fact, it can be very damaging, as it results in a false sense of safety. Take banking, for instance. You lend the banks more when you deposit it and you should be well aware of the risks. With the government guaranteeing and (supposedly) regulating them, it lead people into a false sense of security and much of this crisis is a result of this. I think you agree on this point.

Bad regulation should be rejected by competition, in the same way as the services are. If you have a government monopoly on regulation, with mistakes funded by tax payers and bailouts, it is a recipe for disaster.

Er South Sea Bubble, no govt regulation and it nearly bankrupted the UK. Human stupidity is unlimited, and some levels of stupidity starts mass wars like the 1st World War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I think Marx got it wrong, as he was looking in the wrong place for the problem. It wasn't capitalism as such that was flawed, but the statism that it spawned from. Statism is what has caused the ever larger booms and busts, not the free market*. Statism has lead to the bailing out the corporates and the rich, at the expense of of the working and middle classes. Democracy itself, where the majority rule the minority, has also shown itself to be deeply flawed. However, statism has caused the failure of democracy to be so utterly destructive.

It isn't so much that communism or capitalism is bad, but the way that statism uses force to implement either. There is nothing wrong with people volunteering to pool resources into a community. There is nothing wrong with individuals and/or communities trading in a free market. What is wrong is the violent nature of statism, which forces people into one way of life or the other, destroying their liberties, stealing their property and threatening their lives.

If the peak of our civilisation can only be maintained through the barrel of a gun, we are far from civilised at all.

* Many of the imbalances in the world are due to poor policy, leading us further away from balance. Decisions were made for the short term, to win votes, rather than working to improve the lives of us all in long term. Sad, but inevitable; when people look to and lobby for big government to 'do something', the nanny state always gladly obliges.

[EDIT: BTW, it is interesting that communism/socialism was originally seen as an anarchist/revolutionary idea and it was anti-state. Unfortunately, many were seduced by the state as a mechanism to destroy it 'from within', but then promptly became part of the machine they formally despised. It is about time the original revolutionary thoughts returned, with the state being crushed for good this time.]

The trouble is capitalism will always result statism as those that have hoarded vast amounts of wealth seek to preserve and expand it by any means necessary. The only way to prevent this is by stopping monopolies but the only way to have the power to break up a monopoly is via the state, which then starts to develop into other problems.

Even the courts can't be independent to uphold a constitution as in the latest German ruling which legalised the illegal bailout.

It's a catch 22 nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er South Sea Bubble, no govt regulation and it nearly bankrupted the UK. Human stupidity is unlimited, and some levels of stupidity starts mass wars like the 1st World War.

behave the south sea bubble was formed off the back of the South Sea company being granted a monopoly by govt creating an effective central bank (as it did so for the purchase of govt debt) and if a central bank isnt govt interference id struggle to know what is, every major game changing credit bubble in history has the same mechanism behind it of an effective monopoly/ restriction granted by govt, it would be impossible to create such pervasive sized bubbles throughout history without the force of monopoly behind them

Edited by Tamara De Lempicka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is capitalism will always result statism as those that have hoarded vast amounts of wealth seek to preserve and expand it by any means necessary. The only way to prevent this is by stopping monopolies but the only way to have the power to break up a monopoly is via the state, which then starts to develop into other problems.

Even the courts can't be independent to uphold a constitution as in the latest German ruling which legalised the illegal bailout.

It's a catch 22 nightmare.

Monopolies and cartels are very hard to even form without the state. See the video below for details (it's a good, short, summary). I'd be interested in hearing your (or anyone's) arguments against it:

The government says it protects property rights when it is the biggest abuser. The government says it breaks up monopolies, when it's the biggest monopolist. It is pure propaganda and is easily dismissed with a bit of thorough thinking.

Still unconvinced, they not only encouraged the formation of the banking cartel, but they have also protected it throughout this crisis! It's laughable.

Incidentally, if monopoly is inevitable, why don't we have a world government and why is the EU are the brink of a split?

Statism only has the power which people give it. If enough people resist taxation and/or show disgust at their violent actions, support and the means to pay for support disappears, with the state's power collapsing like a house of cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Statism is what has caused the ever larger booms and busts, not the free market*.

But is it really possible to talk about a free market in the absence of the state? Without property rights, limited liability, incorporation , trusts and all the other legal constructs provided by the state there could be no viable market of the complicated sort we have today.

Add to this the need to maintain social order and a predictable environment for investment and the natural/man made infrastructure.

So surely it's more logical to regard capitalism as simply one way of organising a state- just as socialism is another way.

To talk about 'free markets' as if they could somehow exist outside a state is like trying to pretend you could have a rim without a hub.

Free markets are in every sense creatures of states- for example ask any free market enthusiast if limited liability is a good thing and most will say yes, completely oblivious to the fact that limited liability is state sanctioned mitigation of investment risk.

Artificially slicing a single process in two and then saying that one half is to blame for the failure of the other half is absurd.

What we are living through at present is not a failure of the state nor a failure of markets- it is a failure of the state/market paradigm due to the fact that too much weight was given to the 'free' aspect of that paradigm and not enough given to the 'regulation' aspect.

The ongoing effort of the Neo Liberal establishment to blame the 'state' for the current mess in an attempt to preserve the fantasy of rational markets theory is like falling over in the street and trying to blame the left foot for the failure of the right foot- when in reality the entire left foot/right foot process of biped locomotion suffered a coordination failure.

What has failed here is not the markets or the state but the particular flavour of the state/free market paradigm that has been in fashion for the last three decades. We now need another flavour, one that places more constraint on the Bankers who have proven themselves fatally flawed guardians of our societies wealth and well being.

They know this to be true but are so corrupt that they seek in every way to stop this shift from occurring- seemingly willing to bring the temple down around themselves rather than give up their power.

If we must use the epithet 'feral scum' I know who I would nominate as the prime candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it really possible to talk about a free market in the absence of the state? Without property rights, limited liability, incorporation , trusts and all the other legal constructs provided by the state there could be no viable market of the complicated sort we have today.

Add to this the need to maintain social order and a predictable environment for investment and the natural/man made infrastructure.

So surely it's more logical to regard capitalism as simply one way of organising a state- just as socialism is another way.

To talk about 'free markets' as if they could somehow exist outside a state is like trying to pretend you could have a rim without a hub.

Free markets are in every sense creatures of states- for example ask any free market enthusiast if limited liability is a good thing and most will say yes, completely oblivious to the fact that limited liability is state sanctioned mitigation of investment risk.

Artificially slicing a single process in two and then saying that one half is to blame for the failure of the other half is absurd.

What we are living through at present is not a failure of the state nor a failure of markets- it is a failure of the state/market paradigm due to the fact that too much weight was given to the 'free' aspect of that paradigm and not enough given to the 'regulation' aspect.

The ongoing effort of the Neo Liberal establishment to blame the 'state' for the current mess in an attempt to preserve the fantasy of rational markets theory is like falling over in the street and trying to blame the left foot for the failure of the right foot- when in reality the entire left foot/right foot process of biped locomotion suffered a coordination failure.

What has failed here is not the markets or the state but the particular flavour of the state/free market paradigm that has been in fashion for the last three decades. We now need another flavour, one that places more constraint on the Bankers who have proven themselves fatally flawed guardians of our societies wealth and well being.

They know this to be true but are so corrupt that they seek in every way to stop this shift from occurring- seemingly willing to bring the temple down around themselves rather than give up their power.

If we must use the epithet 'feral scum' I know who I would nominate as the prime candidates.

Yes, that's right.

Without someone sticking a gun in your face, someone might stick a gun in your face and central bankers with a state backed monopoly are an indictment of the free exhange of goods and services.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it really possible to talk about a free market in the absence of the state? Without property rights, limited liability, incorporation , trusts and all the other legal constructs provided by the state there could be no viable market of the complicated sort we have today.

Add to this the need to maintain social order and a predictable environment for investment and the natural/man made infrastructure.

So surely it's more logical to regard capitalism as simply one way of organising a state- just as socialism is another way.

To talk about 'free markets' as if they could somehow exist outside a state is like trying to pretend you could have a rim without a hub.

Free markets are in every sense creatures of states- for example ask any free market enthusiast if limited liability is a good thing and most will say yes, completely oblivious to the fact that limited liability is state sanctioned mitigation of investment risk.

Artificially slicing a single process in two and then saying that one half is to blame for the failure of the other half is absurd.

What we are living through at present is not a failure of the state nor a failure of markets- it is a failure of the state/market paradigm due to the fact that too much weight was given to the 'free' aspect of that paradigm and not enough given to the 'regulation' aspect.

The ongoing effort of the Neo Liberal establishment to blame the 'state' for the current mess in an attempt to preserve the fantasy of rational markets theory is like falling over in the street and trying to blame the left foot for the failure of the right foot- when in reality the entire left foot/right foot process of biped locomotion suffered a coordination failure.

What has failed here is not the markets or the state but the particular flavour of the state/free market paradigm that has been in fashion for the last three decades. We now need another flavour, one that places more constraint on the Bankers who have proven themselves fatally flawed guardians of our societies wealth and well being.

They know this to be true but are so corrupt that they seek in every way to stop this shift from occurring- seemingly willing to bring the temple down around themselves rather than give up their power.

If we must use the epithet 'feral scum' I know who I would nominate as the prime candidates.

Neo Liberals blaming the state? Free markets a creature of the state? :lol::lol:

I usually like bits of your posts, even if I don't agree with them. This one just seemed full of hand waving and denial.

That you think people can't trade without being threatened with violence is very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But If Marx was right about everything, why arent we seeing the rise of the workers, and the first proletariat run state?

But we are seeing that, starting at the top. Banks are clearly run for the benefit of their top employees, not shareholders. They have had sufficient labour power to keep profits for themselves and deny it to 'capital'.

Don't make the mistake of equating bankers with capital. The capital belongs to others.

Oh, and what was that about a worker run state?

I humbly suggest that this is the tip of the iceberg in the coming flip between labour and capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why trade when you can simply take what you want by force?

Because you are just as killable as everybody else.

Yes and it also reduces your ability to trade in the future (few will trust you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you are just as killable as everybody else.

So in the end it all comes down to violence after all- the ultimate sanction even in your view. Your'e just a statist at heart, admit it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 338 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.