Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many years this has been seen as the pinnacle of success for most working class people,this who have been able to rise above living on the breadline and secure a future for themselves and their children. However today the burden of home ownership seems overwhelming and even if you are able to actually get on the housing ladder pay mortgage and bill's actually maintenance of a property is financially devastating. Luckily I'm a carpenter so can do most things but have massively gotten behind due to illness. We have some major jobs that need doing "new roof" We cannot afford it. It's just never ending,so for many the miniscule cut in national insurance will not make a difference at all. Have the working class been priced out of home ownership, despite Thatcherism touting that everyone should own their own house, what that really meant was, The well off should all own their own houses and rent them to the unwashed masses. Even people earning a combined household income of 50k plus are struggling,so how the piss are people on minimum wage supposed to buy a house let alone maintain it!!" Not knowing your specific situation. Sadly housing is a real problem in the uk. Modern houses are built to absolutely shocking quality. Particularly roofs can be expensive I have just had the same with the recent downpours. Thankfully just my porch bit. But the mould has come through and the electrics have gone. Make sure you get a good roofer. My ex went through 3 roofers who all misdiagnosed tbe problem before the local 80 year old handyman in Bramham found the issue ( the felt) Make sure you get second and 3rd opinions before easy big investment. Because if it doesn't address the issue. You'll be fucked chasing the money you already spent on a cowboy, and paying for the actual fix. Sadly re thatcherism that hasn't exists in any conservative government sinc esher was ousted. I would love every family to own their own home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary." Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I would love every family to own their own home. " Even foriegners, loonie lefties and people who were once photographed with a soft toy in the background? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"House prices are simply a matter of supply vs demand. If we won’t limit the demand then the only option is to increase the supply. As a homeowner part of me always laughs all the way to the bank when I see the latest immigration figures." 100%. Foreigners are the problem here. Don't even look at the government. What about those people in that small boat over there! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget." The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"House prices are simply a matter of supply vs demand. If we won’t limit the demand then the only option is to increase the supply. As a homeowner part of me always laughs all the way to the bank when I see the latest immigration figures. 100%. Foreigners are the problem here. Don't even look at the government. What about those people in that small boat over there!" It’s not my fault you don’t understand basic economics. Educate yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"House prices are simply a matter of supply vs demand. If we won’t limit the demand then the only option is to increase the supply. As a homeowner part of me always laughs all the way to the bank when I see the latest immigration figures. 100%. Foreigners are the problem here. Don't even look at the government. What about those people in that small boat over there! It’s not my fault you don’t understand basic economics. Educate yourself." No, I'm agreeing with you. Everything is the fault of foriegners. Nothing to do with those who run the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next." I think I fall in millennial then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. " 1981-1996 are considered Millenials. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"GenX here, I bought my first house at 21 in Belfast. At the time I thought it was a sensible to do. Lots of my friends went travelling and saw the world while I was working to pay for bricks and motar! The UK seems to have an attitude that if you don't own a house you're nobody! Enjoy your life, if I could go back I would do things differently " I think it's about specifically living in the uk. Given that now rent eats up about 50% of your wage, and is always going tk increase. If you can get a property you should do so as its usually an appreciating asset. And allows you to save on income. You don't want to get to 70 and not have a house and still pay rent and bot be able to retire. People can always look to move as you say/ travel. Ironically I have a friend who went travelling for 8 yearswhile I stayed in the uk and worked my waybuo the corporate ladder. They now complain they'll never be able to afford a house. While I have one. Swings and round abouts. Don't complain if you dpnt work towards something | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. " If you were born in 1987 you are Gen Z | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. 1981-1996 are considered Millenials." Sorry feisty but that is not correct (or at least not from the various sources I looked at?) Boomers = Post WWII (mid 1940s) to mid 1960s Gen X = Mid 60s to Early/Mid 80s Gen Z = Mid 80s to Mid 90s Millennials = Mid 90s to ???? Although Gen Z and Millennials are sometimes conflated. Certainly in marketing that is the audience targeting distinctions. Have you a different source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. 1981-1996 are considered Millenials. Sorry feisty but that is not correct (or at least not from the various sources I looked at?) Boomers = Post WWII (mid 1940s) to mid 1960s Gen X = Mid 60s to Early/Mid 80s Gen Z = Mid 80s to Mid 90s Millennials = Mid 90s to ???? Although Gen Z and Millennials are sometimes conflated. Certainly in marketing that is the audience targeting distinctions. Have you a different source?" Scrub that my mistake. Swap Millennials and Gen Z. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. 1981-1996 are considered Millenials. Sorry feisty but that is not correct (or at least not from the various sources I looked at?) Boomers = Post WWII (mid 1940s) to mid 1960s Gen X = Mid 60s to Early/Mid 80s Gen Z = Mid 80s to Mid 90s Millennials = Mid 90s to ???? Although Gen Z and Millennials are sometimes conflated. Certainly in marketing that is the audience targeting distinctions. Have you a different source?" Statista - Generation Alpha: 2013-2020. Generation Z: 1997-2012. Millennials: 1981-1996. Generation X: 1965-1980. Baby Boomers: 1946-1964. Silent Generation:1928-1945. Greatest Generation: Pre-1928 (Also includes the youngest members of the 'Lost Generation' born before 1901) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many years this has been seen as the pinnacle of success for most working class people,this who have been able to rise above living on the breadline and secure a future for themselves and their children. However today the burden of home ownership seems overwhelming and even if you are able to actually get on the housing ladder pay mortgage and bill's actually maintenance of a property is financially devastating. Luckily I'm a carpenter so can do most things but have massively gotten behind due to illness. We have some major jobs that need doing "new roof" We cannot afford it. It's just never ending,so for many the miniscule cut in national insurance will not make a difference at all. Have the working class been priced out of home ownership, despite Thatcherism touting that everyone should own their own house, what that really meant was, The well off should all own their own houses and rent them to the unwashed masses. Even people earning a combined household income of 50k plus are struggling,so how the piss are people on minimum wage supposed to buy a house let alone maintain it!!" You can do it, I did on my own in London on a salary much less than 50k. I was just very very frugal. It's boring and I lost friends over it but that was the only way it could be done. Now I have a place, the same applies unfortunately, I'm still boring. I still never have any disposable income whatsoever.  Tough but doable in a lot of cases, just takes a lot of compromise unfortunately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. 1981-1996 are considered Millenials. Sorry feisty but that is not correct (or at least not from the various sources I looked at?) Boomers = Post WWII (mid 1940s) to mid 1960s Gen X = Mid 60s to Early/Mid 80s Gen Z = Mid 80s to Mid 90s Millennials = Mid 90s to ???? Although Gen Z and Millennials are sometimes conflated. Certainly in marketing that is the audience targeting distinctions. Have you a different source? Statista - Generation Alpha: 2013-2020. Generation Z: 1997-2012. Millennials: 1981-1996. Generation X: 1965-1980. Baby Boomers: 1946-1964. Silent Generation:1928-1945. Greatest Generation: Pre-1928 (Also includes the youngest members of the 'Lost Generation' born before 1901)" . I shoulda just googled it ha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"running the country is a business, the above have no experience of that." With respect, I disagree. Businesses do not have to provide services to customers that do not generate profit (or will only do so on a short term basis while they transition their offering). The purpose of a business is to generate profit. The purpose of a country is to look after its citizens as effectively as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"running the country is a business, the above have no experience of that. With respect, I disagree. Businesses do not have to provide services to customers that do not generate profit (or will only do so on a short term basis while they transition their offering). The purpose of a business is to generate profit. The purpose of a country is to look after its citizens as effectively as possible." Is it? I’d much prefer that the state “looks after me” as little as possible. What that thinking has led to is the state interfering very inefficiently in every aspect of our lives and creating a massive self serving bureaucracy that screws up everything that it touches. The problem now is that we are in a death spiral with vast numbers of people dependent on the state for their overpaid non jobs, benefits, and business funding for endless state approved projects which totally misallocate capital (see HS2 and every green energy project), capital which has of course either been seized off taxpayers, borrowed or printed. There isnt a single problem anywhere in the world that the British state (and many western states are the same) thinks can’t be solved by its involvement. The issue is that politicians and the bureaucracy think that they are omnipotent when in fact they are just incompetent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"running the country is a business, the above have no experience of that. With respect, I disagree. Businesses do not have to provide services to customers that do not generate profit (or will only do so on a short term basis while they transition their offering). The purpose of a business is to generate profit. The purpose of a country is to look after its citizens as effectively as possible. Is it? I’d much prefer that the state “looks after me” as little as possible. What that thinking has led to is the state interfering very inefficiently in every aspect of our lives and creating a massive self serving bureaucracy that screws up everything that it touches. The problem now is that we are in a death spiral with vast numbers of people dependent on the state for their overpaid non jobs, benefits, and business funding for endless state approved projects which totally misallocate capital (see HS2 and every green energy project), capital which has of course either been seized off taxpayers, borrowed or printed. There isnt a single problem anywhere in the world that the British state (and many western states are the same) thinks can’t be solved by its involvement. The issue is that politicians and the bureaucracy think that they are omnipotent when in fact they are just incompetent." in your mind effectively means as little as a possible. I don't see the OP here defined it either which way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"running the country is a business, the above have no experience of that. With respect, I disagree. Businesses do not have to provide services to customers that do not generate profit (or will only do so on a short term basis while they transition their offering). The purpose of a business is to generate profit. The purpose of a country is to look after its citizens as effectively as possible. Is it? I’d much prefer that the state “looks after me” as little as possible. What that thinking has led to is the state interfering very inefficiently in every aspect of our lives and creating a massive self serving bureaucracy that screws up everything that it touches. The problem now is that we are in a death spiral with vast numbers of people dependent on the state for their overpaid non jobs, benefits, and business funding for endless state approved projects which totally misallocate capital (see HS2 and every green energy project), capital which has of course either been seized off taxpayers, borrowed or printed. There isnt a single problem anywhere in the world that the British state (and many western states are the same) thinks can’t be solved by its involvement. The issue is that politicians and the bureaucracy think that they are omnipotent when in fact they are just incompetent." You jumped straight to benefits and bypassed military, police, courts and justice system, environmental regulations, borders, airspace, consumer protection, education, healthcare etc etc I would say all of those and more would be categorised as “looking after citizens” wouldn’t you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many years this has been seen as the pinnacle of success for most working class people,this who have been able to rise above living on the breadline and secure a future for themselves and their children. However today the burden of home ownership seems overwhelming and even if you are able to actually get on the housing ladder pay mortgage and bill's actually maintenance of a property is financially devastating. Luckily I'm a carpenter so can do most things but have massively gotten behind due to illness. We have some major jobs that need doing "new roof" We cannot afford it. It's just never ending,so for many the miniscule cut in national insurance will not make a difference at all. Have the working class been priced out of home ownership, despite Thatcherism touting that everyone should own their own house, what that really meant was, The well off should all own their own houses and rent them to the unwashed masses. Even people earning a combined household income of 50k plus are struggling,so how the piss are people on minimum wage supposed to buy a house let alone maintain it!!" Completely agree with you, however I must point out (it is not point scoring tryst me) here in Scotland we still have a council build policy, though its now called partnership homes. We also stopped selling off our councils houses a long time ago to protect our stock. The UK though needs a 1946 type houing regeneration scheme where older properties and unused land become the homes for tomorrow. Unfortunately 90% of the landlords (including equity forms and pension forms) oppose this as it would devalue their portfolio. I say build the council houses of tomorrow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You jumped straight to benefits and bypassed military, police, courts and justice system, environmental regulations, borders, airspace, consumer protection, education, healthcare etc etc I would say all of those and more would be categorised as “looking after citizens” wouldn’t you?" I noticed that as well and a salient observation. The point often missed by the "I stood on my own two feet, so everyone else can do it as well brigade" is that only works in a equitable society where everyone has exactly the same opportunity to thrive and prosper. However there is no such society on the planet, of any political colour or persuasion. Which fundamentally means there will always be socio-economic oppression, where a ruling class will concentrate power and wealth, and a smidgeon will trickle down to the masses. By its nature, their "opportunities" are more restricted. By design, the power structure works as intended. Yes, there are always "outliers" who "made it". But we cannot say a system is "fair and equitable" if only a small percentage are able to climb it. To use the other poster's own words, I'd much prefer the "state looks after everyone, by everyone contributing to the success of everyone else, not their own personal success." A rising tide lifts all boats. One man can build a well in a village and charge everyone else to use it. Or the village can club together and build the well, and provide water for free for everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sadly it goes something like: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say wait a minute, water is essential for all so the village as a whole needs to own that well thank you very much. 3. Some time later a new Chief says, we can make some money selling that well to someone, don’t worry village you will all have the chance to own a tiny bit if it (if you have the money and sorry poor people not you). 4. The new owners of the well then start charging ever more for the water and... 5. Start shitting in it." 3a. The new Chief and the man from #1 then conspire. The man says "I'll cut you in on the profits, if you sign the land the well is on over to me. In essence, 2 people actively working against the best interests of the village for their own personal gain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another common scenario is: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say "Wait a minute, water is essential for all, so the village as a whole needs to own that well". 3. The man realises that he can't make money with his idea, so he gives up. 4. Everyone stays thirsty." Except that isn’t what happened because... 2a. The Elders recognised that water was essential for all life and not therefore a commodity so profit has no bearing on it as it is an expense worth the village supporting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another common scenario is: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say "Wait a minute, water is essential for all, so the village as a whole needs to own that well". 3. The man realises that he can't make money with his idea, so he gives up. 4. Everyone stays thirsty." "Except that isn’t what happened because... 2a. The Elders recognised that water was essential for all life and not therefore a commodity so profit has no bearing on it as it is an expense worth the village supporting." What a fortunate village to have such wise and benevolent Elders. I'm sure no-one in the village will question why the Elders hadn't already thought of this idea and got the well dug ages ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another common scenario is: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say "Wait a minute, water is essential for all, so the village as a whole needs to own that well". 3. The man realises that he can't make money with his idea, so he gives up. 4. Everyone stays thirsty. Except that isn’t what happened because... 2a. The Elders recognised that water was essential for all life and not therefore a commodity so profit has no bearing on it as it is an expense worth the village supporting. What a fortunate village to have such wise and benevolent Elders. I'm sure no-one in the village will question why the Elders hadn't already thought of this idea and got the well dug ages ago." Well the Elders at the time of point 2 were only youngsters before and during point 1 so had no say. Clearly the Elders before were useless but things progressed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Capitalism, if you don't like it you can try and change it through the ballot box. Love it or hate it, we are further forward and motivated through capitalism, if money wasn't a motivator you probably would not be using a device to interact on this site. " Agreed no argument there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another common scenario is: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say "Wait a minute, water is essential for all, so the village as a whole needs to own that well". 3. The man realises that he can't make money with his idea, so he gives up. 4. Everyone stays thirsty." I'd suggest that the people weren't thirsty but using up time going to the river. So what happens is that after 1, people have more time to do other things (eg work the fields). Eventually the population of the tribe grows and every one relies on the well. The person who invented it is long gone. The company that has control now starts to take advantage of it's monopoly. People go thirsty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Capitalism, if you don't like it you can try and change it through the ballot box. Love it or hate it, we are further forward and motivated through capitalism, if money wasn't a motivator you probably would not be using a device to interact on this site. " Wasn't the internet made using government spending at the US army, UK university funding, and then given away to help humanity? If you don't like the system we are in try and overthrow the system using the tools the system uses to stop you overthrowing it is a bit of a jump. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Capitalism, if you don't like it you can try and change it through the ballot box. Love it or hate it, we are further forward and motivated through capitalism, if money wasn't a motivator you probably would not be using a device to interact on this site. Wasn't the internet made using government spending at the US army, UK university funding, and then given away to help humanity? If you don't like the system we are in try and overthrow the system using the tools the system uses to stop you overthrowing it is a bit of a jump. " Sorry, I missed the part where I mentioned the internet? But thanks for the overview, very informative indeed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wasn't the internet made using government spending at the US army, UK university funding, and then given away to help humanity?" No. The internet isn't a thing, it's a concept. Put enough computers and routers and cables together, and an internet emerges. The governments and universities came up with the ideas and the standards for joining everything together, and so are the 'inventors' of the internet, but most of the hundreds of millions of bits of equipment that make it all work are owned by businesses. Those businesses supply that equipment so that they can make a profit from people using it. But when NotMe said "using a device", I suspect he meant a tablet, or a mobile phone, neither of which would exist if it were down to governments to invent these things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many years this has been seen as the pinnacle of success for most working class people,this who have been able to rise above living on the breadline and secure a future for themselves and their children. However today the burden of home ownership seems overwhelming and even if you are able to actually get on the housing ladder pay mortgage and bill's actually maintenance of a property is financially devastating. Luckily I'm a carpenter so can do most things but have massively gotten behind due to illness. We have some major jobs that need doing "new roof" We cannot afford it. It's just never ending,so for many the miniscule cut in national insurance will not make a difference at all. Have the working class been priced out of home ownership, despite Thatcherism touting that everyone should own their own house, what that really meant was, The well off should all own their own houses and rent them to the unwashed masses. Even people earning a combined household income of 50k plus are struggling,so how the piss are people on minimum wage supposed to buy a house let alone maintain it!!" To me the problem with not owing you own property is the other option. Renting so you sign a 6 month lease after witch time you might have to move. Or rent goes up. Why is there not a 10 year lease where the rent gose up by 4% each year or something like that. Renting has changed now you pay Income-tax on the rent received not the profit made. Is made the system a compleat mess.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another common scenario is: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say "Wait a minute, water is essential for all, so the village as a whole needs to own that well". 3. The man realises that he can't make money with his idea, so he gives up. 4. Everyone stays thirsty. I'd suggest that the people weren't thirsty but using up time going to the river. So what happens is that after 1, people have more time to do other things (eg work the fields). Eventually the population of the tribe grows and every one relies on the well. The person who invented it is long gone. The company that has control now starts to take advantage of it's monopoly. People go thirsty. " I am enjoying this analogy  so I am going tp stretch it further
Water is a natural resource ergo a person has no right to “own” it or commoditise it. The Elders recognised that, and as water is essential for life, and flows under the land that belongs to the village as a whole, they rightly wanted the well to be owned by village.
However, drawing water from the well proved to be hard work so when a person came along with a machine that would make light of the work, the Elders agreed that the benefit to the village justified paying the inventor a fee to use the machine.
The inventor was happy because without the well and natural resource, his invention was useless.
The villagers were happy as access to water for all was made easier.
That is socialism and capitalism working together for the benefit of all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Water is a natural resource ergo a person has no right to “own” it or commoditise it." I assume you mean "no man *should* have the right to own it", because in this country people do have that right. But your logic would suggest that land ownership should be illegal, since land is a natural resource. It would also follow that no one could make money from wind or solar energy, since those things are both natural resources. Food shops would also close down, because plants are natural resources. How far will you take this philosophy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another common scenario is: 1. A man has ingenious idea to build a well and charge people to access water. 2. The Village elders say "Wait a minute, water is essential for all, so the village as a whole needs to own that well". 3. The man realises that he can't make money with his idea, so he gives up. 4. Everyone stays thirsty. I'd suggest that the people weren't thirsty but using up time going to the river. So what happens is that after 1, people have more time to do other things (eg work the fields). Eventually the population of the tribe grows and every one relies on the well. The person who invented it is long gone. The company that has control now starts to take advantage of it's monopoly. People go thirsty. I am enjoying this analogy so I am going tp stretch it further
Water is a natural resource ergo a person has no right to “own” it or commoditise it. The Elders recognised that, and as water is essential for life, and flows under the land that belongs to the village as a whole, they rightly wanted the well to be owned by village.
However, drawing water from the well proved to be hard work so when a person came along with a machine that would make light of the work, the Elders agreed that the benefit to the village justified paying the inventor a fee to use the machine.
The inventor was happy because without the well and natural resource, his invention was useless.
The villagers were happy as access to water for all was made easier.
That is socialism and capitalism working together for the benefit of all. "I was Harvington rain to water plants. We had a hose pipe ban and I was pumping water out of storage to water plants. The water board cam round and told me as I was stopping thr rain entering the water course I would need to buy an extension licence. And you say you can't own water lol joke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Water is a natural resource ergo a person has no right to “own” it or commoditise it. I assume you mean "no man *should* have the right to own it", because in this country people do have that right. But your logic would suggest that land ownership should be illegal, since land is a natural resource. It would also follow that no one could make money from wind or solar energy, since those things are both natural resources. Food shops would also close down, because plants are natural resources. How far will you take this philosophy?" Yes no man should. The rest is a fair challenge. I need to give more thought but my initial reaction is that water and land are not the same. Land is static whereas water is not. As for food, well plants to make food are grown and cultivated not just collected in the wild through foraging. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"House prices are simply a matter of supply vs demand. If we won’t limit the demand then the only option is to increase the supply. As a homeowner part of me always laughs all the way to the bank when I see the latest immigration figures. 100%. Foreigners are the problem here. Don't even look at the government. What about those people in that small boat over there!" Mass movement of people is the main driving factor in house price increase since the late 90s and early 2000s under your beloved Labour Government at the time. If you don't think migration or "Foreigners" as you like to put it is a major issue in house price inflation you are deluded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A simple way to put it is that the population has increased and housing hasn't matched up. Broadly speaking, most countries have managed most demands of a rise in population. Remember the doomsday theory in the 1980s about how increase in population will result in starvation and major crisis? We did well with most issues except two - Real Estate and Energy. The two are problematic in every country, not just UK. The only way to solve this is obviously to build more houses. In the UK, horizontal expansion is blocked by green belt. Vertical expansion is blocked by Nimbyism. So building houses has been dead slow and hasn't caught up with the speed of population rise. " Th other option is to flatern old out dated property that is damp, hard to heat and have large gardens and rebuild. It was done in the 60s and 70s as slum clearance. This could be restarted to up date areas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maintaining a house is expensive. In theory one factors this into what you pay for a house. I'm practice everyone looks to see what max mortgage they can get and what that buys. I doubt many take a lower mortgage so they can create a maintenance/emergency cash fund. " Hand up. Coming from a deprived area and whose parents worked menial jobs for low wages, I became money savvy at a very young age. Choosing a semi detached house over a detached one (£7,000 difference in 1999) = funds for maintenance. Well it did back then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As you know, one driver of inflation is supply vs demand. If you don’t build enough houses it pushes the price up of the remaining houses. It’s been great for some people. Rubbish for others. GenX likely to be the last who were able to buy a house on a modest salary. Who the fuck are gen x again. Inalways forget. The children of the Baby Boomers. People born b/w mid 1960s-mid 1980s You are Gen Z. Millenials are next. I think I fall in millennial then. 1981-1996 are considered Millenials. Sorry feisty but that is not correct (or at least not from the various sources I looked at?) Boomers = Post WWII (mid 1940s) to mid 1960s Gen X = Mid 60s to Early/Mid 80s Gen Z = Mid 80s to Mid 90s Millennials = Mid 90s to ???? Although Gen Z and Millennials are sometimes conflated. Certainly in marketing that is the audience targeting distinctions. Have you a different source?" Two of my children are the same generation as I am. That sounds wrong.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"running the country is a business, the above have no experience of that. With respect, I disagree. Businesses do not have to provide services to customers that do not generate profit (or will only do so on a short term basis while they transition their offering). The purpose of a business is to generate profit. The purpose of a country is to look after its citizens as effectively as possible." Nice sentiment  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Capitalism, if you don't like it you can try and change it through the ballot box. Love it or hate it, we are further forward and motivated through capitalism, if money wasn't a motivator you probably would not be using a device to interact on this site. " Oops I read that as bollox box. That's kinda true | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maintaining a house is expensive. In theory one factors this into what you pay for a house. I'm practice everyone looks to see what max mortgage they can get and what that buys. I doubt many take a lower mortgage so they can create a maintenance/emergency cash fund. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many years this has been seen as the pinnacle of success for most working class people,this who have been able to rise above living on the breadline and secure a future for themselves and their children. However today the burden of home ownership seems overwhelming and even if you are able to actually get on the housing ladder pay mortgage and bill's actually maintenance of a property is financially devastating. Luckily I'm a carpenter so can do most things but have massively gotten behind due to illness. We have some major jobs that need doing "new roof" We cannot afford it. It's just never ending,so for many the miniscule cut in national insurance will not make a difference at all. Have the working class been priced out of home ownership, despite Thatcherism touting that everyone should own their own house, what that really meant was, The well off should all own their own houses and rent them to the unwashed masses. Even people earning a combined household income of 50k plus are struggling,so how the piss are people on minimum wage supposed to buy a house let alone maintain it!!" Good job you own a home. I own an apartment, we have to pay maintenace fees, sea defence fees, garden feature fee, as well as pay for the upkeep on the area. They are replacing a lift soon, god knows how much that will cost us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For many years this has been seen as the pinnacle of success for most working class people,this who have been able to rise above living on the breadline and secure a future for themselves and their children. However today the burden of home ownership seems overwhelming and even if you are able to actually get on the housing ladder pay mortgage and bill's actually maintenance of a property is financially devastating. Luckily I'm a carpenter so can do most things but have massively gotten behind due to illness. We have some major jobs that need doing "new roof" We cannot afford it. It's just never ending,so for many the miniscule cut in national insurance will not make a difference at all. Have the working class been priced out of home ownership, despite Thatcherism touting that everyone should own their own house, what that really meant was, The well off should all own their own houses and rent them to the unwashed masses. Even people earning a combined household income of 50k plus are struggling,so how the piss are people on minimum wage supposed to buy a house let alone maintain it!! Good job you own a home. I own an apartment, we have to pay maintenace fees, sea defence fees, garden feature fee, as well as pay for the upkeep on the area. They are replacing a lift soon, god knows how much that will cost us." Leasehold purchases sucks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
