Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
johnycoldears

Jeremy Paxman Slags Off The Boomers

Recommended Posts

you said the size of leeds

this is not the same as the urban area which any non-dimwit would realise is arbitrarily defined by political boundaries

numpty

edit to add:

just checked the ONS actual report (took a few minutes, maybe as long as it takes you to understand long words in the daily mail I assume)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/rep-2010-based-npp.html#tab-Summary-of-long-term-assumptions

yeap, they assume a constant immigration rate based on recent years, exrapolating this forward 25 years with nio change

they are honest about it, but it does not constitute a report that examines likelihood or dynamics of future immigration

basically you, and the daily mail, being stoooopid, have taken a report with a base assumption of high immigration and said it proves we will have high immigration for the next 25 years

hilarious and extremely foolish

I think you will find most people believe the true immigration rate to be far greater than reported, as things falter in Europe expect many more on our doorstep in the coming years until they cut off the benefits tap. For those actually wanting to work here we are still more attractive than what they will have back home.

Even if it continued to be high for just five more years the damage is done, we have to build just so many homes to make up for the last 13 years of mass immigration into this country.House prices and rent espeically in the job rich south east will be cushioned by this for the foreseable future

Those needing a family house are espeically worse off, of the new builds most of them have been flats so giving houses a much larger premium over flats

Edited by mercsl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't remember anyone blaming the previous generation for the economic troubles of the 70s , guess serving in ww2 gave them a get out of jail card.

The majoirity of the bankers were in their 30s not boomers, grey hair is pushed out early these days. Madoff was a boomer though ...

Medical advances look like they will prolong boomers for many more years than previous generations so not going anywhere soon :)

Edited by mercsl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The censor at the Mail is being EXTREMELY selective with the comments they allow........

The moderator obviously has an agenda, and that agenda is to publish as many comments as possible telling Paxman to shove it.

Ive put a few across mentioning specifics on HPI, but none have it made it onto the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it when newspuppets present documentaries. Unlike an academic who has studied the subject for decades, they have no idea of which points in the script are the important ones, which are controversial etc so you end up getting everything on full dramatic volume. It's like having a hammy actor emote a Wikipedia article at you.

:lol:

To be fair the 'expert' correspondents on the news are no better. I think Andrew Marr started the trend when he was political editor and instead of telling you what had happened he told you what he wanted you to think it meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you'll find the comments are unmoderated. "The comments below have not been moderated" however they do have an automatic censor for certain words. I once posted a message saying that someone was 'away with the fairies' meaning those little dainty things with wings, the comment was not published so maybe you used a word/words that were un-p.c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The censor at the Mail is being EXTREMELY selective with the comments they allow........

You say that, but my comment has currently got a +20 rating. It even mentions Land Value Tax.

I would say though, don't follow the link from the beginning of this thread - copy and paste it into a new browser. If you follow a hyperlink, they can see the "referer" site that you came from (and they might well have a prejudice against HPC!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that, but my comment has currently got a +20 rating. It even mentions Land Value Tax.

I would say though, don't follow the link from the beginning of this thread - copy and paste it into a new browser. If you follow a hyperlink, they can see the "referer" site that you came from (and they might well have a prejudice against HPC!).

Hmmm HPC un-p.c :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who needs affordable housing, pensions and a job for life when you have an ipod ...

... that you bought on credit ...

... with payment protection insurance (85% commission to the lender) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Madoff was a boomer though ...

Born 1938 ... check.

The generation that naturally had the most opportunities, in that they had few competitors for those opportunities. The absolute opposite of the 1960s-born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would not be the same Jeremy Paxman whose salary was revealed as in excess of £ 1 million a year from the BBC alone not to mention the royalties he will get from plugging his books on subjects such as the British Empire on TV. Hardly the person to be lecturing ex coal miners or steel workers born in the immediate post war period about how lucky and selfish they were.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/19/bbc.broadcasting

He is a one percenter if ever there was one. Despite all the frantic attempts in the media to pump up the anti boomer scapegoating most people in the world know that the reality it is that 1% who get the cream and the other 99% that get the sh*t regardless of which generation they were born.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would not be the same Jeremy Paxman whose salary was revealed as in excess of £ 1 million a year from the BBC alone not to mention the royalties he will get from plugging his books on subjects such as the British Empire on TV. Hardly the person to be lecturing ex coal miners or steel workers born in the immediate post war period about how lucky and selfish they were.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/apr/19/bbc.broadcasting

He is a one percenter if ever there was one. Despite all the frantic attempts in the media to pump up the anti boomer scapegoating most people in the world know that the reality it is that 1% who get the cream and the other 99% that get the sh*t regardless of which generation they were born.

I'm not sure this criticism is entirely valid. A couple of points of note:

1. At least Paxman actually "earned" his wealth, inasmuch as anyone can be said to be worth paying that much. The issue under discussion is boomers riding a house price boom. This is surely far closer to a definition of unearned wealth than someone who is perhaps overpaid.

2. As usual a boomer thread descends into individual case-studies. If it's not some thick as ****** boomer posting about how he "lived in a tent for 20 years" so it's not his fault then it's someone lambasting a specific boomer. I think this misses the point. All economics is about macro. Macro doesn't give a shit about Paxman. As a generation the boomers have messed up the UK big time. Some people actively worked against this. Some people saw they couldn't fight the system. Many pocketed the money like greedy morons and voted for the party that offered to put future generations into the most debt to their benefit. Because the latter are the majority IMHO it's valid to make the sweeping statement that the boomers are *****.

Macro is not about individuals. We cannot enumerate everyone when discussing such matters. Similarly an individual can make a valid point in spite of being culpable themselves. John Prescott could write a book on cross-training. It could be that it's technically excellent and pushes humans to new physical peaks. The book would stand on it's own merit even if Prescott is a fat slob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the BBC doesn't borrow. It may be immoral - but it's all bought and paid for each year.

All with money derived from extortion.

Just try not having a TV and you'll run into the BBC's "guilty until proven (temporarily) innocent" routine.

I got my monthly "threat-o-gram" the other day. It went straight in the bin.

"We have opened an investigation". One of their standard computer generated letters letters. Not nearly as juicy as this one.

I must have had more investigations opened on me than Richard Nixon in the early 70s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure this criticism is entirely valid. A couple of points of note:

1. At least Paxman actually "earned" his wealth, inasmuch as anyone can be said to be worth paying that much. The issue under discussion is boomers riding a house price boom. This is surely far closer to a definition of unearned wealth than someone who is perhaps overpaid.

2. As usual a boomer thread descends into individual case-studies. If it's not some thick as ****** boomer posting about how he "lived in a tent for 20 years" so it's not his fault then it's someone lambasting a specific boomer. I think this misses the point. All economics is about macro. Macro doesn't give a shit about Paxman. As a generation the boomers have messed up the UK big time. Some people actively worked against this. Some people saw they couldn't fight the system. Many pocketed the money like greedy morons and voted for the party that offered to put future generations into the most debt to their benefit. Because the latter are the majority IMHO it's valid to make the sweeping statement that the boomers are *****.

Macro is not about individuals. We cannot enumerate everyone when discussing such matters. Similarly an individual can make a valid point in spite of being culpable themselves. John Prescott could write a book on cross-training. It could be that it's technically excellent and pushes humans to new physical peaks. The book would stand on it's own merit even if Prescott is a fat slob.

Boomers did nothing to wreck the UK. What were they supposed to do? Pray tell, what would you have done, if you had been of that generation, that would have saved us? Don;t blame the accidental receivers of a windfall* instead of the barstewards who cut the tree down, the two are not the same, and you know it.

Hint: if the younger generations had stayed away from LIAR LOANS we wouldn't be in this mess. If the financial markets had NOT been de-regulated, perhaps we wouldn't be in it either.

Don't start on the "I'd have voted differently" tosh. Whoever you vote for, the government gets in, and they don't work for the voters, they work for their sponsors.

* A paper windfall that can't be realised unless you sell your home and move into a lesser one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Born 1938 ... check.

The generation that naturally had the most opportunities, in that they had few competitors for those opportunities. The absolute opposite of the 1960s-born.

Actually it's the other round. A large cohort of any generation exert undue power across the generations above and below them. So whilst they do compete against each other collectively they create more opportunities for their whole generation and bend rules\behaviour\political systems to the benefit in general of their whole cohort.

Isn't that the whole baby boomer debate?

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell of Tipping point fame describes it very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boomers did nothing to wreck the UK. What were they supposed to do? Pray tell, what would you have done, if you had been of that generation, that would have saved us?

It's not so much that they are the recipients of a windfall, it's the "I left school at 15 and worked harder than you are prepared to work, that's why I'm rich. You spend all your money on iPods" mentality.

That's what pisses me off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boomers did nothing to wreck the UK. What were they supposed to do? Pray tell, what would you have done, if you had been of that generation, that would have saved us? Don;t blame the accidental receivers of a windfall* instead of the barstewards who cut the tree down, the two are not the same, and you know it.

Hint: if the younger generations had stayed away from LIAR LOANS we wouldn't be in this mess. If the financial markets had NOT been de-regulated, perhaps we wouldn't be in it either.

Don't start on the "I'd have voted differently" tosh. Whoever you vote for, the government gets in, and they don't work for the voters, they work for their sponsors.

* A paper windfall that can't be realised unless you sell your home and move into a lesser one.

A paper windfall! You have a home mate. The youngsters now have to rent. And by youngsters I mean average FTB age 37 and counting.

Most young people didn't lie on their loan forms. They were offered multiples well in excess of the former 3x as prices detached from wages. By the time people started taking multiples on like that the horse had already bolted.

I don't think most boomers deliberately wrecked the economy. This is why it's very hard to convince them that they caused the problem. It's exactly the same thing with banking. It's not a freemason conspiracy - just a good old mixture of greed and stupidity.

I've talked with countless boomers about it. Most have no idea about "the ladder" even after they talk about it. They can't explain inflation. They can't answer the simple question "what happens if housing continues to rise in real terms forever". If they can't extrapolate this simple point then it's not worth speaking with them any further.

I was stopped in St Albans this weekend by The National Trust. I said I wouldn't help fund them opposing new builds. The lady was nice but dim as. Pointless speaking to them, they just want to have the world as they like it with all the inherent contradictions eg respect from young people but their shit 2 bed worth 400K. No immigrants but lots of cheap labour to do menial tasks. Low taxes but a big NHS. All the shit labour promised them which they ate up without thinking. Like morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much that they are the recipients of a windfall, it's the "I left school at 15 and worked harder than you are prepared to work, that's why I'm rich. You spend all your money on iPods" mentality.

That's what pisses me off.

You can't win the argument because most don't understand the mechanism that got us to where we are. It's an un-winnable argument:

* if you didn't understand it then you let bad things happen because you are dumb and greedy

* if you did understand it then you are greedy and an arsehole

The example you cite falls into the middle of the overlapping circles:

* arsehole, dumb, greedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be Generation X and possibly Generation Y who will gain from my windfall as a member of the Silent Generation. Or I may spend it before I go. ;)

This is another one I hear all the time. Your generation will get our wealth.

1. I'd sooner pay my own way thanks

2. We'll by 60 by time time we inherit if we do

3. This is dire for social mobility - parents rent? Have a shit life

4. You're gonna spend it all on care anyhow mate. Event then it's gonna run out before most of you finally piss off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. You're gonna spend it all on care anyhow mate. Event then it's gonna run out before most of you finally piss off

What a sad person you are the reason why people like you I have adopted my attitude, maybe I should pop off now so you can inherit in your 30s or early 40s. The mind boggles. BTW you could never be my mate. ;):P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointless speaking to them, they just want to have the world as they like it with all the inherent contradictions eg respect from young people but their shit 2 bed worth 400K. No immigrants but lots of cheap labour to do menial tasks. Low taxes but a big NHS. All the shit labour promised them which they ate up without thinking. Like morons.

:lol:

True dat, to use the parlance of our times.

And there is the other type that is directly responsible for the literal enslavement of the young, the buy to let investor. Buy to letters cannot pretend not to understand that charging an innocent young struggling couple a fortune for a simple home is ruining their lives and taking away any chance they have of living like they did. No amount of cutting back or working harder will do them any good, and the exploiter knows it.

Edited by cybernoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a sad person you are the reason why people like you I have adopted my attitude, maybe I should pop off now so you can inherit in your 30s or early 40s. The mind boggles. BTW you could never be my mate. ;):P

It's a figure of speech. I'm not wishing anyone dead. You are trying to take the moral high ground via an interpretation in order to avoid responding to the actual points. This is a poor debating technique.

Also your first sentence is barely legible. The fact that you are alive and have somehow amassed enough money to purchase a computer is proof in itself that your generation had it quite easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a figure of speech. I'm not wishing anyone dead. You are trying to take the moral high ground via an interpretation in order to avoid responding to the actual points. This is a poor debating technique.

Also your first sentence is barely legible. The fact that you are alive and have somehow amassed enough money to purchase a computer is proof in itself that your generation had it quite easy.

Oh my Gawd have you had an Uni Education? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

True dat, to use the parlance of our times.

And there is the other type that is directly responsible for the literal enslavement of the young, the buy to let investor. Buy to letters cannot pretend not to understand that charging an innocent young struggling couple a fortune for a simple home is ruining their lives and taking away any chance they have of living like they did. No amount of cutting back or working harder will do them any good, and the exploiter knows it.

...it's the Government who decide these rates by setting the housing allowance thresholds around the country...the inflationary rent trends set by Nuliebour were to fuel their Gordo Magic Economy...they are going to be difficult to turn around but the pigs are already squealing above their troughs as the hear of the coalition reforms...and the start of the end of GME.... :rolleyes:

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 296 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.