Good Old Fergus!

CLAPTON

editor1 wrote: »

Ever heard of the "balance of payments" or manufacturing, you know, those things that really are important to this nation and are not "extractive."

What's the point in arguing with people like you and the other posters though, you believe a "rentier" or extractive business model is best for the UK, you support this and you support the FIRE economy, this despite the huge longterm damage it does to our nation.

Thank God I at least add to the nations wealth by actually bringing in overseas money by doing honest work globally - I actually add value to the nation, I don't subtract from the nations wealth, which is exactly what the Wilson's do. And then you have the audacity, as with others, to ask why I detest them!!!!!!!

presumably you do this good work for Wales by ripping off over nationalities?

danothy

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I'm not the only person who is confused by your posts:

I resent that somewhat. I was in now way confused in this instance.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And dktreesa was responding to a post specifically about the wilsons.

That's simply not true, as the post being responded to moved very notably from a specific example to the general:

editor1 wrote: »

The Wilson's are an abomination, as is anyone who is a part of the rent extracting economy that's actually destroying the fabric of many a nation

My emphasis.

editor1

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumably you do this good work for Wales by ripping off over nationalities?

WEll today I'm in the process of registering a "not for profit" business at Companies House, this business will be based in Cardiff and is in alliance with my other business enterprise in Hong Kong, which is also a "not for profit" and run on a "cooperative" basis. We'll have full-time staff and piecework staff globally, or shall I say, the USA, UK and Asia Pacific.

The income for these businesses will come from mainly multinational corporations in IT and the financial services sector - obviously, some of these businesses will be UK entities, but the majority are overseas entities ranging from blue chips, to boutique houses.

Oh, and I can't be clearer in my own opinions or hatreds.

I can afford to pay myself a reasonable salary only and all risks involved are underwritten by myself and other "named" directors.

What will you being doing may I enquire - perhaps sending the bailiffs around to eject social welfare claimants from your rented properties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mayonnaise

editor1 wrote: »

To say yours, and many others knowledge of economics and the perils of a "rentier" or extractive system is appalling would be an understatement.

You claim the Wilson's run a successful business - successful for whom may I ask? The nation itself or for their personal pockets?

You come to their defence and claim the service they are offering - what service is this, apart from ripping people off.

Allegedly, we live in a "free market" and the market dictates price via supply and demand - this is news to me as I've never actually as an economic historian come across the much professed "free market" written about by the neoclassical and neoliberal economists - but lets not let fantasy get in the way of your less than valid points and arguments.

How shall we take this apart, if the Wilson's built up most of their empire prior to 2003, which we shall say constitutes the beginning of the housing bubble of this century, then their investment would have doubled in value in line with house price inflation between 2003 and 2007 - that value of their mortgage remains the same as in 2003, or, because they are a business, they have renegotiated debt interest payments and now benefit from lower debt costs and hence higher profit margins. Now, being the greedy !!!!!!s they are, they then talk about "markets" and "demand" and ramped up the costs of their rents, even though debt repayments are lower than when the original debt/mortgages were taken on, i.e., no cost saving has been passed on to the consumer, rather the reverse, we are told that the house is now theoretically worth more, and as such rents must go up accordingly, even though their actual costs have reduced substantially. Oh we can talk inflation and all other nonsense, but the fact remains, the value of their debt, and debt repayments has reduced substantially, particularly in an era of ZIRP and bank willingness only to lend/loan funds against property.

Ever heard of the "balance of payments" or manufacturing, you know, those things that really are important to this nation and are not "extractive."

What's the point in arguing with people like you and the other posters though, you believe a "rentier" or extractive business model is best for the UK, you support this and you support the FIRE economy, this despite the huge longterm damage it does to our nation.

Thank God I at least add to the nations wealth by actually bringing in overseas money by doing honest work globally - I actually add value to the nation, I don't subtract from the nations wealth, which is exactly what the Wilson's do. And then you have the audacity, as with others, to ask why I detest them!!!!!!!

Quite simple really, they and other BTL'ers are parasites.

You remind me of an old mate of mine - his name was Foxy.

Anyway, what's all that incoherent rambling about extractive systems about. Can you elaborate a bit more on why rental payments are extractive.
And many thanks for being such an asset to our nation. You're the man.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

......Why why why is everything turned into this pointless argument stuff?

Go and make a cup of tea with your kettle or black pot.:rotfl:

Then you can calm down, come back, and explain clearly that you have no objection to all landlords apart from those that behave like the Wilsons.

MFW_ASAP

danothy wrote: »

I resent that somewhat. I was in now way confused in this instance.

No, I wasn't confused either. It was plain as a pikestaff what Devon meant, but you'll find that it's sometimes easier to let a few things slide with him or we end up with pages of him crying about how beastly everyone is.

editor1 wrote: »

Oh, and I can't be clearer in my own opinions or hatreds.

Fair play, at least you're sticking to your guns. Devon seems to have expressed the same sentiments as you, but then was pulled up on these sentiments and backtracked, claiming he was 'misquoted' and that 'everyone is picking on him'. Pathetic really, but just what we've come to expect from him.

CLAPTON

editor1 wrote: »

WEll today I'm in the process of registering a "not for profit" business at Companies House, this business will be based in Cardiff and is in alliance with my other business enterprise in Hong Kong, which is also a "not for profit" and run on a "cooperative" basis. We'll have full-time staff and piecework staff globally, or shall I say, the USA, UK and Asia Pacific.

The income for these businesses will come from mainly multinational corporations in IT and the financial services sector - obviously, some of these businesses will be UK entities, but the majority are overseas entities ranging from blue chips, to boutique houses.

Oh, and I can't be clearer in my own opinions or hatreds.

I can afford to pay myself a reasonable salary only and all risks involved are underwritten by myself and other "named" directors.

What will you being doing may I enquire - perhaps sending the bailiffs around to eject social welfare claimants from your rented properties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

interesting why a business supporting international IT & finance companies is run as not for profit.
Is that so you can subsidise these worthy companies or are the profits from your not for profit companies put to better use?

ruggedtoast

Breaking News:

Fungus on C4 just now. A working single mother on top up housing benefit called him to report a broken radiator before Christmas. Receives a phone call 30 minutes later from Wilson asking if she's on housing benefit, immediately then told she has to be out in January.

The reporter asked him what will happen to her what rights she has. He says she has the right to bed and breakfast accommodation. When asked what his duty of care is to her he replies:

"I'm a private sector landlord. I don't have a duty of care to her."

Ironically the Wilsons may actually be the authors of actual tenancy reform where every pressure group has failed.

Graham_Devon

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Breaking News:

Fungus on C4 just now. A working single mother on top up housing benefit called him to report a broken radiator before Christmas. Receives a phone call 30 minutes later from Wilson asking if she's on housing benefit, immediately then told she has to be out in January.

The reporter asked him what will happen to her what rights she has. He says she has the right to bed and breakfast accommodation. When asked what his duty of care is to her he replies:

"I'm a private sector landlord. I don't have a duty of care to her."

Ironically the Wilsons may actually be the authors of actual tenancy reform where every pressure group has failed.

He's told her to get the radiator fixed herself, too.

But he's running a business, so it's OK.

editor1

mayonnaise wrote: »

You remind me of an old mate of mine - his name was Foxy.

Anyway, what's all that incoherent rambling about extractive systems about. Can you elaborate a bit more on why rental payments are extractive.
And many thanks for being such an asset to our nation. You're the man.

May I suggest you look up the term "FIRE" economy and then report back.

I believe this should give a reasonable overview of what "extractive" or "rentier" society is.

Otherwise, as the "stealth" capitalist I am, I'll charge you for the information.