Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

always_sunny

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

We desperately need proper statesmen back, and to do something about the press. I think an excellent start would be a complete ban of foreign owners and influence in any media based here or selling papers/broadcasting in the UK that covers news and politics. We're currently allowing propaganda from foreign interests to influence the electorate.

That will be the last nail on the coffin for the UK. For a starter I think the UK cannot afford to buy back what is owned by foreigners.

Media whether foreign or not thrive on the gullible. A lot of people are sold an idea that doesn't exist rationally but choose to go for it anyway.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

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

They did also tell us that it was a self destruct button, very clearly.

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

Everyone who votes has the responsibility to take it seriously and at least have some idea of what we are voting for. Going by the spike in Google queries like "what is the EU?" after voting closed, I think a lot of voters failed in the most basic due diligence.

I'm not blaming the voters entirely, they information they were fed by the media was absolute garbage, intended to play on their fears. But neither are they completely innocent. They had plenty of opportunity to do the most basic research in advance.

Most of the blame definitely lies with the liars though, and they really should be regarded as criminals.

.string.

It didn't take a newspaper to point out the similarity between Trump's initial utterances on the violence and the organisations behind it and Corbin's remarks on IRA and other terrorust atrocities. The parallel was there for all to see.

The notion that extremists of sides in a fight are to be condemned is not exactly rocket science, it's obvious. But Trump's remarks were Corbyn-like in their avoidance of outright condemnation of the major far-right organisations, especially against the background of that murderous car attack.

kabayiri

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Kabayiri, the platforms are controlled by foreign ownership, but the authors can be anyone... I consider them a quite separate issue which requires a completely different approach - that doesnt mean action shouldnt be taken on other issues, such as newspapers. The actual media still hold considerable sway, and are seen as legitmate far more so than fb, twitter etc

There is no true separation of platform from content.

That's a myth.

Firstly, there are overiding regulatory frameworks, and pressure groups, which influence the providers.

Then there is the fact that these are monetizing platforms. To assist this, there are extensive user profiling activities which go on.

If you mostly read stuff on YouTube from the Rebel Media, you will be presented with more material which other Rebel Media viewers also view.

It's too easy to become an echo chamber for narrow views.

I will flip from very clear left of centre material to so called alt right. I will even seek out contrary viewpoints on the same news story. I don't think people who buy the Guardian would also buy the Daily Mail.

Herzlos

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.

Because it's not a binary outcome.

There seems to be at least 3 different visions of "Leave": WTO, Canada, Norway.

What really should have happened is for the first referendum to have triggered a 2 year consultation on the options, with a question like "Should we investigate leaving the EU?: Yes or No".
After that consultation period, we should have another referendum based on the outcome, with "Which option should be try to achieve?: A, B, C or D".

With the current setup, you pretty much guarantee that the majority will be unhappy with whatever outcome we have. There's literally no option that will satisfy as much as half of those that voted.

Rusty_Shackleton

always_sunny wrote: »

That will be the last nail on the coffin for the UK. For a starter I think the UK cannot afford to buy back what is owned by foreigners.

Media whether foreign or not thrive on the gullible. A lot of people are sold an idea that doesn't exist rationally but choose to go for it anyway.

Who says anything about the UK would have to buy back anything?

You simply pass legislation that forces the current owners to divest - happens all the time, for example if there's an anti-trust ruling from a merger or acquisition, part of the business can be forcibly sold off as part of allowing the M/A. The same could be done with utilities, if you pass a law saying the owners must be British citizens, then foreign owners would simply have to find a British buyer.

Please don't think I'm talking about nationalising newspapers etc. I think the BBC as a standalone is a good idea, but not the wholesale nationalisation of the media sector.

Herzlos

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.

You seem to have this very middle class notion that wealth is evenly distributed, and that every child has a parent/grandparent that owns a house.

But you're completely missing that wealth begets wealth, something like 60% of BTL landlords own more than 1 rental property. i.e. their children will inherit at least 3 houses between them.

With home ownership at 64%, that means 36% do not have a home to pass on, whilst the home they own will be passed on to someone else (unless it's in one of the few social houses left).

So some people will inherit a lot of money and/or multiple houses, some will inherit a little money and a single house, and some will inherit less than that.

When the generation above me passes on, I expect to inherit half a house (currently paid off) and the equity on 1/3rd of a flat. And in my wider social group I'm one of the better off. I expect most of us will get less than that.

always_sunny

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

You simply pass legislation that forces the current owners to divest - happens all the time, for example if there's an anti-trust ruling from a merger or acquisition, part of the business can be forcibly sold off as part of allowing the M/A. The same could be done with utilities, if you pass a law saying the owners must be British citizens, then foreign owners would simply have to find a British buyer.

What you're describing is red tape which will not bring any befit to the UK beside scream that investing in the UK is unstable and legislation can change at the detriment of foreign owners.
Would you invest in such country?

(You do know getting British citizenship is a fairly easy task, dual nationality is also allowed making the whole point futile)

Rusty_Shackleton

kabayiri wrote: »

There is no true separation of platform from content.

That's a myth.

Firstly, there are overiding regulatory frameworks, and pressure groups, which influence the providers.

Then there is the fact that these are monetizing platforms. To assist this, there are extensive user profiling activities which go on.

If you mostly read stuff on YouTube from the Rebel Media, you will be presented with more material which other Rebel Media viewers also view.

It's too easy to become an echo chamber for narrow views.

I will flip from very clear left of centre material to so called alt right. I will even seek out contrary viewpoints on the same news story. I don't think people who buy the Guardian would also buy the Daily Mail.

There are elements of truth to this, but the likes of Facebook, while having influence and ultimately control (when and where they choose to exercise it), aren't actually the publisher or an editor. That's the key difference.

Further, if they were to become like a publisher/editor and censored a 'side', there many platforms, it's relatively cheap and easy to host your platform that would allow people to publish freely, and given the decentralised nature of many disruptive technologies (I'm thinking bitcoin) a decentralised platform could be feasible.

I read the Guardian, Independent, New Statesman for the most part, but as much as I loathe adding to their visitor numbers, I also frequent the Daily Mail to see their side (and also to get some laughs out of the idiots BTL).

cogito

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Corbyn always condemns all violence

Weasel words. I haven't heard him condemn the Venezuelan government over the violence and murder committed by them against peaceful protestors.

Then there's this:



Come on Jeremy. Stop siding with the oppressors.