Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

In the UK some £200 billion is gifted/inherited annually. A little over half of that wealth is residential property and most the rest is more liquid assets like cash savings accounts and shares etc.

The locals, the British born kids with British born parents have an easy life they will inherit the wealth of generations. The migrants they will have to sweep our streets make our coffees gut our fish and deliver our parcels. If you want your son to be the fish gutter and your daughter to be the street sweep let's get rid of the migrants.

completely correct. i would say im in that position of being fortunate to have parents with quite a bit of wealth and my parents are not even british born.

economic

in fact my grandparents have their home and another investment property (no debt), which will be passed down to their children (including my dad). so even my parents who are not even born here will have a decent inheritance coming their way.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

completely correct. i would say im in that position of being fortunate to have parents with quite a bit of wealth and my parents are not even british born.

I can some reasonable arguments to be anti immigration but almost all the economic arguments can easily be proven to be total crap

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

completely correct. i would say im in that position of being fortunate to have parents with quite a bit of wealth and my parents are not even british born.

economic wrote: »

in fact my grandparents have their home and another investment property (no debt), which will be passed down to their children (including my dad). so even my parents who are not even born here will have a decent inheritance coming their way.

Some migrant communities have worked hard and saved and invested well but even then its been over a few decades. The British Indian community comes to mind they (the ones that have been here 30+ years) iirc have higher home ownership levels than the locals.

Also we forget that even the developed countries really only started to get wealthy from 1950 onwards. Before that time we were only really second world. Oh and having fewer kids also helped if women have 2 or fewer kids Inheritences get bigger and bigger. In the old days when women had typically 6 kids each generation got little to nothing as 36 grand kids had to share grandmas house so only got 1/36th of a house and that's assuming grand ma of the past was able to save anything which in most cases wasn't possible. Grandmas of today have 4 grand kids and save hundreds of thisuands of pounds to pass on

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Some migrant communities have worked hard and saved and invested well but even then its been over a few decades. The British Indian community comes to mind they (the ones that have been here 30+ years) iirc have higher home ownership levels than the locals.

Also we forget that even the developed countries really only started to get wealthy from 1950 onwards. Before that time we were only really second world. Oh and having fewer kids also helped if women have 2 or fewer kids Inheritences get bigger and bigger. In the old days when women had typically 6 kids each generation got little to nothing as 36 grand kids had to share grandmas house so only got 1/36th of a house and that's assuming grand ma of the past was able to save anything which in most cases wasn't possible. Grandmas of today have 4 grand kids and save hundreds of thisuands of pounds to pass on

Yeh and this leads to capital that is unspent and therefore saved or invested keeping real rates low for the foreseeable future.

Fella

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

There is no hatred directed at the 'elites' in that article. Jones is saying that the events of Charlottesville are enabled by the likes of Trump, by legitimising extreme views, and afterwards, failing to condemn them in more than general 'violence is wrong' terms. Trump is struggling to condemn a group who the FBI have launched a civil rights and domestic terrorism investigation in to. Let that sink in for a minute. Do you think Trump would be struggling to do the right thing if the perpertrator was Muslim? No, he'd be calling for new laws to tackle such vile ideologues. What he is doing is categorically enabling and empowering white supremacists and fascists.

"legitimising extreme views, and afterwards, failing to condemn them in more than general 'violence is wrong' terms."

Hm, now who else do we know that does that? Ah yes......

When Corbyn does exactly the same, with the IRA, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, and with Venezuela, (not to mention more historical scumbags) he gets nothing but adoring support and praise from the likes of Owen Jones and the Guardian. And criticism from the likes of the Daily Mail.

As I said, the Guardian and the Mirror are every bit of guilty of stoking hatred as the Mail etc (more so in the views of lots of people). You simply can't or won't see it because you generally agree with what they write.

cogito

Well said Fella.



Now just how does he apply that to his beloved Venezuela? If he doesn't support the oppressors, why is he silent about it or does he believe that people opposing the government are American stooges?

Rusty_Shackleton

Greatape we're largely on the same page with regards to immigration

Rusty_Shackleton

Fella wrote: »

"legitimising extreme views, and afterwards, failing to condemn them in more than general 'violence is wrong' terms."

Hm, now who else do we know that does that? Ah yes......

When Corbyn does exactly the same, with the IRA, with Hamas, with Hezbollah, and with Venezuela, (not to mention more historical scumbags) he gets nothing but adoring support and praise from the likes of Owen Jones and the Guardian. And criticism from the likes of the Daily Mail.

As I said, the Guardian and the Mirror are every bit of guilty of stoking hatred as the Mail etc (more so in the views of lots of people). You simply can't or won't see it because you generally agree with what they write.

There is a world of difference between Corbyn condemning violence on all sides with the likes of the IRA amd Hamas, and the nazis in Charlottesville:

With the IRA and Hamas they commit gross violence, but so has the other side. In Charlottesville, only one side turned up armed and with makeshift riot shields. Only one side have driven a car into a crowd, only one side have been filmed chasing and beating on a lone opponent like a pack of wolves. Sure, the counter protestors might have thrown a few punches, but if thats all that had happened on both sides we wouldnt be discussing those events, who cares. Youre trying to equivocate minor violence with murder - take a long hard look in the mirror, you are a disgrace to think these things are the same.

The other major difference between Corbyn and in this example, Trump, is that Corbyn always condemns all violence, thas his stance. Trump has no problem calling Muslims terrorists for the acts of relatively few individuals, yet won't call out the extreme right terrorists in the US. Take a look at the FBIs figures for terrorist perpetrators and which 'side' theyre on. The US doesnt have a Islamic terrorism problem, it has a white nationalist effing nazi problem.

You keep saying the guardian and mirror are as bad for stoking hatred, yet youre still failing to give ant evidence of a call to action involving violence or illegal means against anyone. Youre accusing me of blind bias, but youre the one unable or unwilling to prove your point or properly counter mine.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

The referendum question was;

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

What in God's name is wrong with that? Remain or leave, it's a binary option. There are only two choices.

And if, as a voter, you are presented with those 2 options, you have to assume that they are both equally plausible in implementation terms.

I mean, why would our highest elected officials offer a self destruct button, right?

What really annoys me is how the blame is being placed on individual voters for making the best choice they could.

Where is the blame on politicians for not doing due diligence?

Personally, I think they knew that immigration was a big issue amongst sections of the public, but they were too timid to ask that question directly.