Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

What do politicians and civil servants tell themselves to make house price props morally OK with their world view?


Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441
1
HOLA442
2
HOLA443
3
HOLA444
6 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't agree with the premise - that they have morals.  

very fair point - I think it's self-selective and happens with many narcissistic organisations - essentially if you had morals you'd get nowhere in the hierarchy anyway. I also think it's a lot to do with the 'sharp elbowed middle class' mentality, how a certain frankly extreme passive-aggression against people of perceived lesser ability/education etc - takes hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445
5
HOLA446

My view is that they believe excess negative equity is both a vote loser and also that they fear systemic collapse if to many accounts defaulted. Presumably they have banks lobbying them calling for increased spending/liquidity to keep the money-go-round ticking over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447
7
HOLA448
1 minute ago, 24gray24 said:

It's their nice little earner when they retire (early) innit.

Doubt it need go further than that. 

Yes isn't it purely self serving, i.e. typical selfish politician behaviour. They all have property portfolios and will do everything to help prop up prices/rents even though their decisions affect millions and for generations to come?

But as long as they're ok, that's what matters, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449
43 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

My view is that they believe excess negative equity is both a vote loser and also that they fear systemic collapse if to many accounts defaulted. Presumably they have banks lobbying them calling for increased spending/liquidity to keep the money-go-round ticking over.

That is probably true.  In the short term a house price collapse could be a bad thing - the alternative ever increasing prices is of course worse - but when have politicians thought long term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410
10
HOLA4411

What's the difference between this and literally any other state action? 

Why should they feel bad about this in particular, when their whole schtick is controlling other people's lives by pointing huge numbers of guns at them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

They had the perfect patsy to blame for a correction in house prices - Covid-19.

Had they directed the £bn's of tax payers money into initiatives to deal with the pandemic, and told the whining  VI's to wind their necks in, I cannot imagine they would've take an awful lot of flack for it - "sorry everyone appreciate pandemic has impacted the housing market, however our spending priorities must lie with protecting peoples lives etc etc...".

But what did they actually do??

I'm sure in many years this will be called out as the scandal it really is, the young, priced out will eventually wake up and realise what has happened to them. But Boris and Rishi will be long gone by then.

Doesn't help that Starmer's "opposition" is completely and totally ineffective. Instead of moaning on about BoJo's wall paper, how about they shine a light on the massive conspiracy to support prices and line the pockets of the VI's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413
13
HOLA4414
14
HOLA4415
20 minutes ago, Smiley George said:

Doesn't help that Starmer's "opposition" is completely and totally ineffective. Instead of moaning on about BoJo's wall paper, how about they shine a light on the massive conspiracy to support prices and line the pockets of the VI's.

 

The Labour Party should talk about nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416
28 minutes ago, Locke said:

What's the difference between this and literally any other state action? 

Why should they feel bad about this in particular, when their whole schtick is controlling other people's lives by pointing huge numbers of guns at them?

That is all there is to life. Every living thing is in competition for resources with other living things. The strongest survive.

You don't want people with less stuff that you coming in to share you stuff, so you employee people with guns to stop them from being able to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418
18
HOLA4419
19
HOLA4420
Just now, cnick said:

If it is moral for one  *person to demand another **person's property under a threat of violence.

* government

** non government

?

I am confused why you're taking it in this direction. The current government are the worst I've seen in the UK in terms of lies and corruption and sheer nastiness. I don't believe they're all "equally bad".

As for your question above, it's quite shallow.

You're saying the government have no right to what, take a share of the proceeds of your labour to run the infrastructure under which you can perform that labour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421
21
HOLA4422
Just now, cnick said:

* government.

So you can refuse the offer of contract with the people with guns?

Yes, you can, if you can find some land that isn't owned by anybody.

I presume you support land rights, or is that another form of theft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423
23
HOLA4424
24
HOLA4425

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.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information