Mags Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have to say that, whilst I can't stand that smug short ar5e getting his kicks by taunting people in need (what kind of pr*t does that face to face without getting a good kicking?) I do agree that part of today's problem is the tendency for people to want to buy a house on their own, rather than as a couple. My wife and I struggled to buy on 2 incomes in 1975 - there was no way I could have done it alone. Maybe people want to buy alone because they are single. Maybe they don't want to shack up with the first person who asks them. I admire the integrity of those who don't just cling on to a partner just because it makes buying a house easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Can somebody please help this guys portfolio out by getting married and financially stuffed for the next 25 years? Why stop there? Polygamy makes things even more affordable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Why stop there? Polygamy makes things even more affordable Why stop there? Live in a commune! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Europa... your sig is soooooo wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I'm looking forward to an evening of fun watching that greatest of all European institions...the Eurovision Song Fit-Up as hosted by good ol' Telboy. 90 minutes of the worst music you will ever hear, followed by another 90 minutes of tactical voting by the Eastern bloc to ensure that two scantily clad lesbians from Serbia win and get to sing their song 'Viva Sex, Viva Srbska !!' all over again, but with twice as much pyro as the first massively tasteless performance. Can't wait! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhifoe Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I'm looking forward to an evening of fun watching that greatest of all European institions...the Eurovision Song Fit-Up as hosted by good ol' Telboy. 90 minutes of the worst music you will ever hear, followed by another 90 minutes of tactical voting by the Eastern bloc to ensure that two scantily clad lesbians from Serbia win and get to sing their song 'Viva Sex, Viva Srbska !!' all over again, but with twice as much pyro as the first massively tasteless performance. Can't wait! I hope Lordi win: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Europa... your sig is soooooo wrong! But much truth in it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 But much truth in it Believe that if you wish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Europa Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Believe that if you wish! Oh... See what you mean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainclamp Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Well, I can say, as a businessman, that the more immigrants there are the better - there will always be some 'lazy' not working hard enough, someone refusing to work for what I pay them. As a business - the lower my costs the better, however from my greater profits, what are my real economic earnings? What is my real return in purchasing power? I also have to laugh at this fakery of a 'demographic timebomb' put forward by the same old forces of spin and deceit that managed to stop any debate on the real causes of this houseprice boom ('cause its racist). Although many people will reach 60 healthier and fitter than ever before, the idea that we have a demograpic timebomb on our hands is nonsense. The simple answer to the benefits of a longer overall lifespan in a population is to decelerate the retirement cutoff at 60, and give people the realistic tools and choices to choose thier mode of retirement from within the financial resources of the community, of working halfweeks to suit thier lifestyles etc... What we have now, is a large section of the population not working in a perminant state of benefit consumption, while a rich elite bring in millions of low skilled immigrants by stealth and in the absence of debate, for thier financial benefit. As a citizen, I can see the opportunities for my family and the young disappearing as houseprices rise, and thier taxes rise, and the laws of diminishing returns which are left out of the CPI measure hits them hard. A future of renting only, and higher ID card enforced taxes are assured because the levels of immigration are uneconomic in real (ex-CPI - houseprices taxes etc..) terms. There is only one way to get real economic growth without diminishing returns - and thats through innovation. Edited May 17, 2006 by brainclamp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viterbi Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Brainclamp I know a few businessmen who are members of the BNP and even more who are independents opposed to immigration. Therefore your pro immigration stance is not shared by all businessmen. I'm wondering if you are a genuine honest businessmen or a mean boss who comes from the same mould as Ebeneezer Scrooge. I certainly wouldn't like to work for you with your attitude. Perhaps you only employ people desperate for work who will leave as soon as they find a kinder boss to work for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theChuz Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I have to say that, whilst I can't stand that smug short ar5e getting his kicks by taunting people in need (what kind of pr*t does that face to face without getting a good kicking?) I do agree that part of today's problem is the tendency for people to want to buy a house on their own, rather than as a couple. My wife and I struggled to buy on 2 incomes in 1975 - there was no way I could have done it alone. and yet everyone i know who owns a mortgage bought buy themselves on a comparitivly lower wage (substantially) than what i earn now. My younger sister bought her place for around 50K, 5 years back, ive got a friend who bought his 6 or 7 years ago for 46K, another who bought 6 years ago for 60K, each one of them earn a few grand more a year than they did yet the value of thier homes have more than doubled. They all done it on one wage only a few years ago. Go figure, i think we might be in a housing bubble or summin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhifoe Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Brainclamp I know a few businessmen who are members of the BNP and even more who are independents opposed to immigration. Therefore your pro immigration stance is not shared by all businessmen. I'm wondering if you are a genuine honest businessmen or a mean boss who comes from the same mould as Ebeneezer Scrooge. I certainly wouldn't like to work for you with your attitude. Perhaps you only employ people desperate for work who will leave as soon as they find a kinder boss to work for. He's joking. Take a look at some of his other postings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 and yet everyone i know who owns a mortgage bought buy themselves on a comparitivly lower wage (substantially) than what i earn now. My younger sister bought her place for around 50K, 5 years back, ive got a friend who bought his 6 or 7 years ago for 46K, another who bought 6 years ago for 60K, each one of them earn a few grand more a year than they did yet the value of thier homes have more than doubled. They all done it on one wage only a few years ago. Go figure, i think we might be in a housing bubble or summin. If I remember right, CO is still clinging to the idea that it's always been hard to get your first house. I don't think he's acknowledged that it's harder now than it was in his day! I apologise CO if I've got that wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainclamp Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) As a businessman I have no choice but to drive costs down as low as they can realistically go, or my market will be taken by someone who has the lower paid immigrants, rather than my current staff. You must realise - there is no choice in the matter if I want to deliver my produce to market. I would have to fire my current employees, and employ lower paid immigrants. I will get higher profits, (for a while) the faster I act and secure my market, which I can then invest in property. This also explains the rising employment and rising unemployment as people are displaced. Whats good for the desires of business does not mean its good for the community. There is a economic force called the 'tragedy of the commons' (also known as the wicked foot of capitalism) in which given the avaliable resources, any business is forced - for the highest profit and the lowest costs, to raise the supply of workers or animals reaping that field/whatever resource to have the highest output for the lowest cost. So per person/animal they become beggered into consuming as little as possible for the highest real economic return. 'Economic growth' in the system will be high, but this will all go to the owners of the system. Per Capita people/animals are kept in misery. So businesses will always complain of 'skills shortages' etc.. For this reason, the free market mantra is a dogma, and like all dogmas is not a cure all or a new way of living and needs to be regulated with a bit of commonsense. This economic policy of mass immigration is not seeing real economic growth for ordinary members of the community, as they can see the dimishing returns begger them, unless they are under the illusion they are somehow rich just from owning a house! Edited May 17, 2006 by brainclamp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mosstrooper Posted May 17, 2006 Author Share Posted May 17, 2006 STOP IMMIGRATION NOW you have a choice romanian beggars or illegitimate chavs SO START BREEDING NOW YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 There is a economic force called the 'tragedy of the commons' (also known as the wicked foot of capitalism) in which given the avaliable resources, any business is forced - for the highest profit and the lowest costs, to raise the supply of workers or animals reaping that field/whatever resource to have the highest output for the lowest cost. For this reason, the free market mantra is a dogma, . . . Absolute nonsensical rambling, worse than your anti-immigrant polemics if that is possible. The tragedy of the commons has nothing to do with capitalism or businesses but simply postulates that, tragically, resources free to the general population (whether individuals or companies or indeed states) will be exploited to extinction. You've dimly remembered the bit about the need for regulation of public resources. But your conclusions are simply wrong. In fact, to avoid the tragedy, private not public ownership (and hence a free market) is a good idea . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainclamp Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Absolute nonsensical rambling, worse than your anti-immigrant polemics if that is possible. The tragedy of the commons has nothing to do with capitalism or businesses but simply postulates that, tragically, resources free to the general population (whether individuals or companies or indeed states) will be exploited to extinction. You've dimly remembered the bit about the need for regulation of public resources. But your conclusions are simply wrong. In fact, to avoid the tragedy, private not public ownership (and hence a free market) is a good idea . . . Its called the tradagy of the commons, because in the persuit of free market economic growth, higher profits, there maybe some negative effects on the whole community. - i.e. 'the commons' Eg; China suffering massive pollution from its policies of economic growth without regulation. It actually came into being as a concept from the study of population growth! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zag2me Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 (edited) I have to say that, whilst I can't stand that smug short ar5e getting his kicks by taunting people in need (what kind of pr*t does that face to face without getting a good kicking?) I do agree that part of today's problem is the tendency for people to want to buy a house on their own, rather than as a couple. My wife and I struggled to buy on 2 incomes in 1975 - there was no way I could have done it alone. Absolutley, higher expections these days. It's always been dificult to buy a house. If I wanted to live with my girlfriend I could buy a perfectly resonable 2 bedroom semi no problem. Errr but I dont, so Im going to carry on complaining here Edited May 18, 2006 by zag2me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Absolutley, higher expections these days. It's always been dificult to buy a house. At some point in primary school - I forget when - children learn the difference between hard, harder and hardest. I don't understand why people deny that things change - that sometimes it's easier to buy a house than at other times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Observer Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Maybe people want to buy alone because they are single. Maybe they don't want to shack up with the first person who asks them. I admire the integrity of those who don't just cling on to a partner just because it makes buying a house easier. I know, but it does explain the difficulty of buying doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casual Observer Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 If I remember right, CO is still clinging to the idea that it's always been hard to get your first house. I don't think he's acknowledged that it's harder now than it was in his day! I apologise CO if I've got that wrong. No, I've never really said that, and I only joined this forum because I'm deeply concerned about the high price of property, not least for my own 3 kids' prospects. What I've always defended strongly against is some posters' claims that it was easy for my generation to buy. It wasn't it was hard, but not as hard as it is now. Some posters have said that the lowly factory worker in the 70's went out and bought a 4 bed house from their loose change. If that was the case why did people rent, why were there council house waiting lists and why was Cathy Come Home ever made? Rose coloured glasses. Inflation helped us, that's the main difference, although at the time we didn't know it would coz governments kept promising to tackle it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I know, but it does explain the difficulty of buying doesn't it? Maybe it's a contributing factor. What really explains the difficulty of buying right now is the bubble that's in the process of bursting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigsby Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Some posters have said that the lowly factory worker in the 70's went out and bought a 4 bed house from their loose change. If that was the case why did people rent, why were there council house waiting lists and why was Cathy Come Home ever made? Rose coloured glasses. The proportion of the way you spend your wage has changed over the years aswell. Food is much much cheaper. Clothes are for nothing. Electrical goods and gadgets are throw away. It didn't used to be like that. You used to have to save up and look after things when you'd bought them. Hence there was less to go around to pay for other things - like housing. So yes, housing is certainly more expensive now, but its swings and roundabouts when you take other necessary purchases into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mags Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 No, I've never really said that, and I only joined this forum because I'm deeply concerned about the high price of property, not least for my own 3 kids' prospects. What I've always defended strongly against is some posters' claims that it was easy for my generation to buy. It wasn't it was hard, but not as hard as it is now. Some posters have said that the lowly factory worker in the 70's went out and bought a 4 bed house from their loose change. If that was the case why did people rent, why were there council house waiting lists and why was Cathy Come Home ever made? Rose coloured glasses. Inflation helped us, that's the main difference, although at the time we didn't know it would coz governments kept promising to tackle it! I don't think anyone has ever said it was easy, but I'm happy to be corrected. It's the comparison that's important. It's hard to look back and find a time since WW2 when purchasing a modest property as a FTB has been as hard as it is now. All anyone in that position wants from home owners is simple acknowledgement of that fact. Anything less is denial. So yes, housing is certainly more expensive now, but its swings and roundabouts when you take other necessary purchases into account. Hardly! The amount that housing has increased is far more than the savings to be made on clothes! The kind of houses that we're looking at are typically about £120K more than they were about 4 years ago. That's a hell of a lot of clothes etc! It's not swings and roundabouts at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.