We really need to sort out the housing market before it destroys our economy

[Mapatasy]

http://moneyweek.com/how-to-end-the-property-boom-and-bust-cycle/

...I do like this John Stepek chap!

[Futuroid]

Bit late I think, it already has!

[Nabby81]

Very good article 

[Freki]

49 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Bit late I think, it already has!

Can't say it enough

[Wayward]

Great stuff - "The best answer is to restrict the flow of credit into the housing market" - precisely the opposite of what the government is doing.

Debt borrows growth from the future - well yes current economic policy rests almost entirely on taking jam from the future.

[Houdini]

29 minutes ago, Wayward said:

Great stuff - "The best answer is to restrict the flow of credit into the housing market" - precisely the opposite of what the government is doing.

Debt borrows growth from the future - well yes current economic policy rests almost entirely on taking jam from the future.

At last someone who gets it - everything should be done to keep credit levels low as otherwise Banks will use it to suck the lifeblood out of the economy...

[giggler000]

2 hours ago, Houdini said:

At last someone who gets it - everything should be done to keep credit levels low as otherwise Banks will use it to suck the lifeblood out of the economy...

+1  for a lot of things its so tricky to get answer as the best path for resolution, accept this one.   What I don't get is if they end up destroying the plebs - how'd they figure they'd control us next time around?  short term memory's one thing but they're gonna have to pull off some kind of big msm stunt or something globally as i doubt it will be just our housing market

[TheCountOfNowhere]

3 hours ago, Houdini said:

At last someone who gets it - everything should be done to keep credit levels low as otherwise Banks will use it to suck the lifeblood out of the economy...

More and more are getting it...people profited since 1998 now have 30 year old children at home unable to move out because the accept EA bankers valuations of assets they bought for a fraction the banks will now lend the BOEs magicked up cash

[sPinwheel]

Before...?

 

 

[LittlePig]

2 minutes ago, sPinwheel said:

Before...?

 

 

+1

[VancouverGuy]

Hitler knew what he was doing.

When he wanted to destroy the allies' ability to make war. He didn't bomb the factories that were building bombs, planes and tanks. He bombed the housing estates near the factories instead.

[Si1]

Err

[sPinwheel]

5 minutes ago, VancouverGuy said:

Hitler knew what he was doing.

So that's why he ended up in a ditch, on fire.

 

Besides I thought he started bombing civilians because we started to.

[Slimline]

9 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

More and more are getting it...people profited since 1998 now have 30 year old children at home unable to move out because the accept EA bankers valuations of assets they bought for a fraction the banks will now lend the BOEs magicked up cash

^This

[disenfranchised]

3 hours ago, VancouverGuy said:

Hitler knew what he was doing.

When he wanted to destroy the allies' ability to make war. He didn't bomb the factories that were building bombs, planes and tanks. He bombed the housing estates near the factories instead.

Hitler's bombing was inconsequential next to the devastation wrought on Germany by the allies, primarily night time carpet bombing by RAF bomber command who primarily used a mixture of low penetration blast bombs (called "cookies" and "blockbusters") to blow open windows, roofs etc... and a mixture of liquid and chemical incendiaries to light it up.

Almost twice as many Germans died in the most destructive handful of allied bombing than were killed in Britain by German bombs and missiles in the entire war, and up to 10 times as many overall. More than 50% of several major German cities lay in ruins by 1945.

The RAF bombing approach and mixture of bombs was specifically designed to create a firestorm. It never worked on Berlin. Too many wide roads and parks creating fire breaks, too little density of combustible material.

When Arthur Harris promised the Germans had "sown the wind" and "shall reap the whirlwind" he meant it.

[crazypabs]

Don't mention zee vaw!

[@contradevian]

was reading today how China was destined for a "death spiral."

Its funny how so called capitalist economies (yeh even "Communist" China lol) always end up being owned by the real estate sector. (Except Singapore of course where is land ownership is restricted, and most housing is public sector).

[Up the spout]

6 hours ago, disenfranchised said:

Hitler's bombing was inconsequential next to the devastation wrought on Germany by the allies, primarily night time carpet bombing by RAF bomber command who primarily used a mixture of low penetration blast bombs (called "cookies" and "blockbusters") to blow open windows, roofs etc... and a mixture of liquid and chemical incendiaries to light it up.

Almost twice as many Germans died in the most destructive handful of allied bombing than were killed in Britain by German bombs and missiles in the entire war, and up to 10 times as many overall. More than 50% of several major German cities lay in ruins by 1945.

The RAF bombing approach and mixture of bombs was specifically designed to create a firestorm. It never worked on Berlin. Too many wide roads and parks creating fire breaks, too little density of combustible material.

When Arthur Harris promised the Germans had "sown the wind" and "shall reap the whirlwind" he meant it.

I would think he would've bombed Britain better if he'd had the opportunity, didn't the Nazis try to build an atom bomb? That 'we' did aerial bombing of cities better doesn't mean we were worse, just more effective. 

[thewig]

what if the housing market was our economy...

[sPinwheel]

3 hours ago, thewig said:

what if the housing market was our economy...

What do you mean "what if"?

[Blod]

On 17/10/2017 at 9:31 AM, disenfranchised said:

The RAF bombing approach and mixture of bombs was specifically designed to create a firestorm. It never worked on Berlin. Too many wide roads and parks creating fire breaks, too little density of combustible material.

When Arthur Harris promised the Germans had "sown the wind" and "shall reap the whirlwind" he meant it.

Well we would have lost the war if he had continued using the methods used at the start of the war. Their accuracy was so poor that without a complete change of tactics we would be writing this in German. Their blockbusters were called land mines set to detonate on contact. One sadly landed on a packed pub locally killing dozens. 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=30&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB686GB688&hl=en-GB&ei=IDfoWeaPHYHsaMaChcAE&q=chigwell+pub+ww2+bomb&oq=chigwell+pub+ww2+bomb&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...35339.42318.0.43390.20.20.0.0.0.0.237.1634.17j1j1.19.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..2.12.1104...35i39k1j30i10k1.114.jfMMUPa8TaU#imgrc=zonnVroFQRnTwM:

Had a discussion once with a guy who served in the RAF in WW2. He held the view that our unwillingness to ‘grasp the nettle’ added greatly to the length and destruction of the war. 

[disenfranchised]

On 19/10/2017 at 6:27 AM, Blod said:

Had a discussion once with a guy who served in the RAF in WW2. He held the view that our unwillingness to ‘grasp the nettle’ added greatly to the length and destruction of the war. 

British people seem to hold paradoxical beliefs on the subject. We celebrate the "Blitz spirit" and proudly boast how German bombs only made us more determined, yet somehow expected British bombs to work on the Germans.

The post-war strategic bombing review and subsequent efforts to unearth Nazi records show the damage to German manufacturing capacity and supply chain wasn't that heavy. The biggest contribution to the bombing war really made was to tie up a lot of manpower and manufacturing capacity fighting against the RAF & USAF over the skies of Western Europe, rather than on the Eastern Front, of burying and moving and disguising factories rather than building new ones. 

Had bomber command managed to replicate the "success" of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg where over 40,000 people were killed in a giant firestorm, it may have been a different matter. The "mistake" was actually to continue picking important industrial, military & strategic targets like Berlin & Munich that could not be similarly torched in the mistaken belief that the massive visual damage inflicted meant the raids were effective. Had the RAF focussed specifically on other targets because they were of tightly packed wooden construction, so good candidates to create a raging inferno, that may have actually ended the war earlier from the sheer horror of what had happened. The extent of what happened to Hamburg left the Nazis and German people reeling as the news crept out. It could be argued that the mistake in torching Dresden & Pforzheim, neither of which were bombed with any real intent 1939-1944 as they were strategically unimportant, was that it happened in 1945, not 1943. The bomber command strategy of area bombing with no prior warning was one of mass murder and a breach of the 1907 Haugue convention - it's just not written as such because both sides did it and we won.

Perhaps the most sensible thing bomber command could have done but failed to do was react to the fact the defensive armament of its 4 engined heavies was pointless. More men died as a result of being taken on raids as gunners than were saved by those planes having guns by a huge factor. The .303 rifle calibre machine guns fitted to RAF bombers were like peashooters compared with the 20mm cannons carried by fighters by 1942. The best advice to a tail gunner who saw a night fighter was to wait for it to fire first in case it had not seen you, as it was far far more likely to shoot you down than the other way round.

Stripped of its turrets the Lancaster was about 40mph faster, could fly higher, and could have had 3 fewer men on board and carried more bombs per mission without the need to man guns.

Edited October 24, 2017 by disenfranchised

[Blod]

3 hours ago, disenfranchised said:

British people seem to hold paradoxical beliefs on the subject. We celebrate the "Blitz spirit" and proudly boast how German bombs only made us more determined, yet somehow expected British bombs to work on the Germans.

The post-war strategic bombing review and subsequent efforts to unearth Nazi records show the damage to German manufacturing capacity and supply chain wasn't that heavy. The biggest contribution to the bombing war really made was to tie up a lot of manpower and manufacturing capacity fighting against the RAF & USAF over the skies of Western Europe, rather than on the Eastern Front, of burying and moving and disguising factories rather than building new ones. 

Had bomber command managed to replicate the "success" of the 1943 bombing of Hamburg where over 40,000 people were killed in a giant firestorm, it may have been a different matter. The "mistake" was actually to continue picking important industrial, military & strategic targets like Berlin & Munich that could not be similarly torched in the mistaken belief that the massive visual damage inflicted meant the raids were effective. Had the RAF focussed specifically on other targets because they were of tightly packed wooden construction, so good candidates to create a raging inferno, that may have actually ended the war earlier from the sheer horror of what had happened. The extent of what happened to Hamburg left the Nazis and German people reeling as the news crept out. It could be argued that the mistake in torching Dresden & Pforzheim, neither of which were bombed with any real intent 1939-1944 as they were strategically unimportant, was that it happened in 1945, not 1943. The bomber command strategy of area bombing with no prior warning was one of mass murder and a breach of the 1907 Haugue convention - it's just not written as such because both sides did it and we won.

Perhaps the most sensible thing bomber command could have done but failed to do was react to the fact the defensive armament of its 4 engined heavies was pointless. More men died as a result of being taken on raids as gunners than were saved by those planes having guns by a huge factor. The .303 rifle calibre machine guns fitted to RAF bombers were like peashooters compared with the 20mm cannons carried by fighters by 1942. The best advice to a tail gunner who saw a night fighter was to wait for it to fire first in case it had not seen you, as it was far far more likely to shoot you down than the other way round.

Stripped of its turrets the Lancaster was about 40mph faster, could fly higher, and could have had 3 fewer men on board and carried more bombs per mission without the need to man guns.

In the latter stages of the war target choice may very well have been driven by the duel aims of defeating the Nazi and demonstrating to the Soviets a willingness to go the whole nine yards. As far as aircraft speed just look at how fast and lightly armed the Mosquitoes were. Personally if serving in Bomber Command heavies at that time I’d have preferred a bunch of three o threes keeping fighters a little further away than the speed, but that’s just me.

[frederico]

Don't mention the war

[disenfranchised]

17 hours ago, Blod said:

Personally if serving in Bomber Command heavies at that time I’d have preferred a bunch of three o threes keeping fighters a little further away than the speed, but that’s just me.

I'd have just preferred to serve in a Mosquito!