Exploitation, Exploitation, Exploitation

Mistermeaner

CLAPTON wrote: »

as always the questions are pure rhetorical and do not require an answer unless you wish to give one.

I think you should force him to answer

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I think you should force him to answer

inappropriate, as he probably won't know the answers because economics knowledge is overridden by dogma : a Lysenko

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

If you have some interesting facts then do provide them.
You could start by telling us what the current best estimate for the worlds population
and even why a inconsequential rounding is considered a 'lie'.

Increasing the population of the world by 750,000,000 (over 10%) seems to me to be a whopper.

If it was just a genuine error then so be it, we are all human. Your defence of it suggests otherwise.

TBH I think that you see the world as England being a haven of loveliness and the rest of the world being a seething mass of heathens and Frenchies.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Increasing the population of the world by 750,000,000 (over 10%) seems to me to be a whopper.

If it was just a genuine error then so be it, we are all human. Your defence of it suggests otherwise.

TBH I think that you see the world as England being a haven of loveliness and the rest of the world being a seething mass of heathens and Frenchies.

The precise population was irrelevant to the substance of my post.

However, I rounded up to 8000 million .
you suggested I was wrong by 1000 million i.e your estimate is 7000 million
and the general current estimate (changing by the second ) is round 7400 million

The rest of your post is pathetic but consistent with your total abandonment of economic arguments when they don't suit your dogma.

And your maths is rubbish too.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

The precise population was irrelevant to the substance of my post.

However, I rounded up to 8000 million .
you suggested I was wrong by 1000 million i.e your estimate is 7000 million
and the general current estimate (changing by the second ) is round 7400 million

The rest of your post is pathetic but consistent with your total abandonment of economic arguments when they don't suit your dogma.

And your maths is rubbish too.

LOL. You are a very funny person although I am slightly worried that you get to vote.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

LOL. You are a very funny person although I am slightly worried that you get to vote.

never let reason or facts get in your way when you can worship collective wisdom
Your lack of interest in democracy has been previously noted.

kinger101

cells wrote: »

but we only really have a housing problem in London and to a much lessor extent in parts of the SE. Most the rest of the country is very cheap. Some places the cost of buying a home are much cheaper almost 50% less than a decade ago (Mortgage x interest over its life). In about half the country a couple on min wage can buy the median terrace.

That's quite a crude method of determining how much the house costs someone. Low interest rates typically correlate with low inflation, and you shouldn't underestimate the effect this has on a mortgage.

I don't know how many times you've been told that banks don't solely rely on income multiples in determining affordability either.

HornetSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

Yebbut the people most vociferous about high house prices tend to be would-be buyers. House prices are high because there are lots of would-be buyers. Hence the unaffordability of homes to buyers is the fault of home buyers.

This is not a palatable message, of course. Especially at the Grauniad they're going to need their housing problem to be somebody else's fault, and they're always going to need the solution to be higher taxes (on other people).

Yes-but-no-but the most vociferous about maintaining the status quo tend to be home-owners over the age of 45 or so. House prices are high because there are lots of would-be buyers. There are lots of would be buyers because their parents' and grandparents' generations bred like rabbits. Those generations were able to breed like rabbits because of the affordability of family sized homes, otherwise they would have raised families within their means.

This is not a palatable message, of course. Especially at the paperless Mail they're going to need an imbalanced economy to be someone else's imagination, and they're always going to need the solution to be complete denial of an initial problem, followed up by launching attacks (on other people) to shift the agenda on.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

Yes-but-no-but the most vociferous about maintaining the status quo tend to be home-owners over the age of 45 or so. House prices are high because there are lots of would-be buyers. There are lots of would be buyers because their parents' and grandparents' generations bred like rabbits. Those generations were able to breed like rabbits because of the affordability of family sized homes, otherwise they would have raised families within their means.

This is not a palatable message, of course. Especially at the paperless Mail they're going to need an imbalanced economy to be someone else's imagination, and they're always going to need the solution to be complete denial of an initial problem, followed up by launching attacks (on other people) to shift the agenda on.

the main reason that the UK (especial London and the SE) has a housing shortage isn't the native high birth rate but the number of immigrants over 8 million nationally and over 3 million in London alone

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

the main reason that the UK (especial London and the SE) has a housing shortage isn't the native high birth rate but the number of immigrants over 8 million nationally and over 3 million in London alone

There was more than a slight dose of tongue-in-cheek in my response. I went to great lengths to be as ridiculous-yet-rational as the comment I quoted, though I struggled to be as ridiculous.

Immigration is a problem insofar as we have not planned for it, and I'm not just talking about housing. New Labour failed to comprehend that population growth requires balanced improvements in infrastructure, of which housing is a part (they were fantastic at certain areas, most notably police and health and terrible at others, such as transportation, housing and the number, though not quality, of schools). The Tories, whilst acknowledging the need for a revolution in housebuilding and transport improvements, failed to get building off the ground soon enough, and planned poorly by failing to realise that a by-product of strong job growth is strong population growth ("immigration will be in the tens of thousands").

I'm on the fence on how to vote in the referendum. Short term and from a me first perspective, leaving is a no-brainer as my primary concern is the housing market (though I would have preferred the referendum were in 2017 as implied for the last five years or so, as I'd be much better positioned then). But I'm strongly of the view that remaining is the better long term economic option. Job and wage growth is respectable because we have both the ability to create jobs, the ability to fill them, and enough jobseekers and people looking to climb the ladder to backfill roles that become vacant. To vote to leave because we are unable to solve structural problems related to population growth we have known about for decades seems a bit extreme.