London increased by 12.4% in 2015

wotsthat

lisyloo wrote: »

Many of us don't agree it's practice or possible to "opt out". I'll give you 2 examples from the very serious to the almost frivolous.

Let's suppose your options are to stay being bombed or starved in Syria or your other option is to risk your life and possibly drown or get trafficked into slavery or prostitution. You object to both those options but have no option but to take one or the other.
By taking one of those options does not mean you are condoning the actions other parties and up does not IMO mean you lose your right to object. If that was the case we'd all still be slaves.

Another frivolous example but probably more realistic for our first world issues. I have some friends coming for the weekend. We look up west end show prices and it's £100 for tickets at the weekend. I "object" to that price. My choices are either go and pay and suck it up or never go to west end show (assume we can only go on a weekend). I believe that I'm still allowed to believe the price is too high but also go. It simply isn't practical for people to opt out of everything they object to and I (and others) don't believe they lose their right to object.

If you (accidentally) purchase clothing made by kids in a sweat shop, does that make you morally responsible? No it doesn't and you can still object.

I would agree with lower prices across the board, but unilateral action would make no difference generally and harm me personally in my old age, so I personally wouldn't unilaterally lower my house price BUT I didn't contribute to the over population problem in fact I'm helping it by stopping my bloodline. Those who had more than 2 kids (excluding multiple births) are responsible for the over population of the country/planet.

The argument is more subtle. It's not hypocritical to object to high London prices or the cost of tickets for a west end show and still buy them.

It is hypocritical to argue these prices are morally wrong and socially damaging and then buy.

It can be difficult to avoid buying stuff that might have been made using child labour. Buying a London house is really quite simple to avoid.

lisyloo

wotsthat wrote: »

The argument is more subtle. It's not hypocritical to object to high London prices or the cost of tickets for a west end show and still buy them.

It is hypocritical to argue these prices are morally wrong and socially damaging and then buy.

It can be difficult to avoid buying stuff that might have been made using child labour. Buying a London house is really quite simple.

Thanks for clarifying.
As you know I'm a renter for my pied a terre - phew !!

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Wrong, and you know it.

Huge difference is those willing to sell at a lower price are also willing to see price falls.

I don't know why you bother to do this.

When I sell it'll be at market price, the same as you, MW and Jason.

Being 'willing' to see price falls, practically, means nothing.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

It is hypocritical to argue these prices are morally wrong and socially damaging and then buy.

It can be difficult to avoid buying stuff that might have been made using child labour. Buying a London house is really quite simple to avoid.

No, this is a false argument. Being part of a system does not exclude the participant from wanting to see the system changed. This is quite obvious.

I've already told you it is nonsensical, you must trust me on this, I am much smarter than you.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

When I sell it'll be at market price, the same as you, MW and Jason.

Being 'willing' to see price falls, practically, means nothing.

I'm not 'willing', but the market has never asked for my permission as to which way it turns, we are all observers, rather than significant drivers (as you suggest).

I think some people on here (and I'm not just talking about bears, in fact I am more of a bear than a bull) seem to think that somehow what they desire, actually makes a difference to what the market does:rotfl:

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

No, this is a false argument. Being part of a system does not exclude the participant from wanting to see the system changed. This is quite obvious.

Let's remove the 'houses are different' goggles and take the West End tickets. I'd quite like to see a show and am disappointed to discover the tickets are £100. Oh well, I really want to see the show so I'll pay. I'm an active part of a system and, to be honest, I'd quite like that system to change so the tickets are cheaper next time.

If, however, I believe £100 tickets are morally wrong, destroy the fabric of society and I still buy then I'm a hypocrite.

Like London houses buying west end tickets is really quite easy to avoid.

Anyway we're both sat next to each other at the exact same show. Unless you tell me (which I'm sure you couldn't resist) how would I know you occupy a higher moral plane?

mwpt wrote: »

I've already told you it is nonsensical, you must trust me on this, I am much smarter than you.

In the complete absence of practical evidence I'm already having to trust you have higher morals than me based on nothing more than your say so. That's the trust used up for today.

wotsthat

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm not 'willing', but the market has never asked for my permission as to which way it turns, we are all observers, rather than significant drivers (as you suggest).

I think some people on here (and I'm not just talking about bears, in fact I am more of a bear than a bull) seem to think that somehow what they desire, actually makes a difference to what the market does:rotfl:

Yes, 'willing' means nothing whatsoever.

If prices fall and I wanted them to - good for me. If they fall and I didn't want them to I'll have to suck it up.

Absolutely zero practical difference - just a different emotional state.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, 'willing' means nothing whatsoever.

If prices fall and I wanted them to - good for me. If they fall and I didn't want them to I'll have to suck it up.

Absolutely zero practical difference - just a different emotional state.

But also hoover up the lower prices with new investment money. Although I'm pretty much 'all in' now (talking about shares, I was finished with property years ago).

mwpt

You guys are making up arguments that didn't exist and then debating them down. Congratulations, you won against a non existent opponent.

If you come up with anything coherent, let us know.

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

You guys are making up arguments that didn't exist and then debating them down. Congratulations, you won against a non existent opponent.

If you come up with anything coherent, let us know.

It gets complicated when people's morals are questioned for the crime of not agreeing. Not dissimilar to a politician saying 'it's the right thing to do' - an attempt to stifle debate.