markjmd

iTrader: (11)

I'm not even going to try and figure how you've got to the above from anything that I actually posted, it would be just so convoluted I'd risk putting myself in hospital with a cerebral edema.

Yes, and? Are you saying growing corn on it or turning it into a theme park wouldn't bring in money? Assuming you don't disagree that it would, can you explain why you shouldn't pay an equivalent amount to live there instead, if neither of those things are done with it?

You can keep repeating it until the cows come home, that won't ever make it true. In the here and now of 21st Century Britain, anyone who wants a piece of land does have to pay for it, or if they don't want to own it outright, they have to rent it off someone who does, and who themselves will have had to pay for it.

So, then, getting back to your solution ...

dpb

The guardian of that sized piece of land couldn't live off it any other way

Dingdongler

That doesn't even make sense Tony, not your finest hour by any stretch.

However if we must use your (very poor) analogy then give us your theory as to what the solution might be. I don't understand why you are being so coy.

jonc

So you have your free piece of land and then you build a shelter on it, what then?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Because he hasn't got a solution. That is the only conclusion I can reach, given the fact he has been asked outright a number of times, and fails to give one, and even makes a ridiculous analogy to further sidestep (well, actually state there is no solution basically).

If I was to guess, and I could well be wrong, maybe he feels as land is natural, it shouldn't 'belong' to anyone, and people should just be free to turn up and use it to live off, presumably just paying for whatever they choose to live out of (caravan/tent/tree house/cabin....you get the point) and for what they use. A free for all if you like. If that is not the case, then I honestly do not know, as he is clearly not going to tell us......

ScoobyWon't

Like pikeys?

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

It would seem so.

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Property isn't perishable? Restoration must be an imaginary concept then. Tenants cause wear and tear on property. This, if deemed fair for the period of tenancy, is picked up by the landlord. The landlord will have provided safe boilers, heating, windows, etc. The landlord is only covered by a month and a half deposit in most cases which is still vastly small in comparison to the risk of total property value. Buildings and contents only cover up to a certain amount, the rest is on the landlord. They can't be held accountable for a free market. The land argument cannot and will not go anywhere. Unfortunately that ship sailed long ago. The housing cost someone somewhere at some point. It didn't just appear. The modern landlord is simply the next paying person for that property after a long line prior to them. Even then, they do not own the land under their house, as fracking and coal mining have both proved! Even treasure found on your property has to be declared to the state. So it's not all that for property owners an let's not get started on compulsory purchase orders, Death Tax and all that balderdash.

Whilst I do get where you are coming from, there is nothing you can do about it without an army...........the same argument you make for BTL can be applied to ANYTHING in this world with a monetary value attached to it. Technically nothing on this planet creates wealth save for Humankind. We invented it. For everything else on this planet they take what they need. We've been sold on want and brainwashed (well, conditioned) to believe want is need. Like I need a car, therefore I need fuel. I don't. I can manage without them, it'll just be far less hassle day-to-day for me to be a sheep like everyone else where this is concerned. That's the choice I make, even though i could blame society for making that choice easier for me.

I take on board the wikipedia definition of "service". I still view being allowed to hire someone's property to live in as being a service. It's a Tertiary Industry, which is predominantly service-based. Rightly or wrongly. The landlord is providing me with the service, which I can only do once at a time, of using their house for a predetermined time for a fixed fee. I could say the same of a Ferry crossing. It's a fixed fee for something I can use once at a time with a predetermined start and finish. Is a Ferry Crossing a service? I think it is, but going by the Wikipedia definition it isn't if the housing rental isn't. Maybe it's the wording. If something can be argued with enough conviction one way or the other it can be said to be right or wrong. If I can argue right is actually wrong, does that mean you were right or wrong. Which then makes you wonder what is right or wrong exactly? Who determines it and were they right in the first place? I mean Laws are constantly challenged, so right must have been wrong at some point or maybe it wasn't quite right enough.

Makes you think doesn't it?

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

I'm going to bow out of the air license. Not because I don't have it in me to pull that apart, but simply because whilst there is some logic in your beef with BTL, there isn't an iota of logic in that analogy therefore it will be given the further thought I think it deserves. The sum total of which being this paragraph. The most "valuable commodity" you have is time. Wisdom dictates it'd be unwise to spend any more on that little nugget. It made me think though, so credit to you

daveyj

iTrader: (1)

Gravity is a b1tch. There are always boats........oh yeah licenses......boats.......upkeep........it's not like Redbull gives you wings either.

Dingdongler

If that's what he believes then he should say so, we are all entitled to an opinion.

hodgy0_2

Sure, but don't simply believe the current view on property/land has been universal, and hence defines some universal "truth" - plenty of cultures/civilisation have taken a different view, North American Indians, aborigines, tribes in the Amazon rain forest to name a few

Dingdongler

Agreed, and anybody but the most rampant capitalists can see the merit in their viewpoint.

The question is what does Tony feel needs to be done now so that renters aren't exploited.

I'd add Rastafarians to that list as well btw

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I'm not saying what is right or wrong, what should or shouldn't be. I'm just trying to work out what Tony thinks given he is so keen to keep banging on about this topic, yet never actually gives his actual stance/alternative to what the current system here is.

JTaylor

Anarchy?

dpb

I think I saw Tony smashing windows during those inner city riots couple years back

hodgy0_2

yes, sure I understand - in truth maybe there isn't and what we have is the best of the land ownership models that have been invented

what I think is true, is that the UK needs to move away from the simple belief that an increase in land (asset) values means we are all getting richer

a women on the radio noted that in 10 years her property had increased in value by 4 times, but her wages had hardly increased at all - presumably because she is not really any more productive, yet she is wealthier, maybe, but a totally synthetic wealth increase

all this focus on asset prices just masks our chronic lack of productivity when compared to other countries - such as the Germans

JTaylor

Yes. Similarly Churchill famously described democracy as: "the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Perhaps Tony has a revolutionary new model to bring in to the world. Who knows?

Matteeboy

Good post.
It's a big reason we export naff all and rely on artificial wealth "created" by banks and the housing market.

It's just smoke and mirrors; our real productivity is pathetic considering the knowledge base we have. We've got lazy sitting on our butts "making" money doing nothing other than owning (or mostly borrowing on) a house.

We need to make stuff, grow stuff, innovate, not hedge our bets once again on a virtual economy.

Our deficit is conveniently ignored time and time again; all the government does is fall over itself to fool people into thinking they're wealthy.
It's unsustainable, regardless of supply and demand.

jonc

I think TdW draws his 'inspiration' from this:
http://www.grundskyld.dk/pdf/Winston...d-Monopoly.pdf

jonc

What's the difference between the finance industry and the PR industry you work in? What does PR 'create'?

JTaylor

I've not heard nor read that before. Interesting. Thanks, Jon.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

It's not all doom and gloom. Cars manufactured in Britain are being exported worldwide. They are sought after and in demand. We export 80% of all cars we manufacture.

Matteeboy

It creates sales. Three times more effectively than any advert.

So its sells stuff that's made.

jonc

So you don't make stuff or grow stuff or innovate, you don't "create" sales, a sale is the act of buying and selling, nothing is created. Your business is in the business to persuade people to part with their money, not far removed from that of the finance industry in that regard.

Matteeboy

How did you first hear about Subarus? Carrier pigeon?
It's nothing like finance even when you try and spin it.

At its most basic it's targeted, intelligent advertising.

jonc

But my point is carrying on from the point you made about how "we" no longer make stuff. Your business doesn't make stuff does it?

You can quite easily say that banks provides services and products to its customers targeted to their specific need and lifestyle. What's the difference?

Matteeboy

So anything tailored to a clients need is effectively the same?
I thought you were reasonably bright....

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Banks provide services that make them money. Let's not pretend they're there to help the public out.

jonc

Are you saying that it's not?