On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
I don't agree with his reasoning, which is not supported by any evidence other than assertion. Land is not worth anything unless you sell it, or need a mortgage on it. So it shouldn't affect cash flow.
"Land is not worth anything unless you sell it". Quite a novel approach to value if I may say so. I suppose in this view nothing is worth anything unless you sell it. Fortunately Paul Cheshire's words represent a sounder approach to land value than yours
The point, which you and he have missed, is that the value of unmortgaged land has no bearing on cash flow either way. Nor does it make or lose any money unless it is sold. So that is a clearly false elision and faulty reasoning.
As @Richard_Tyndall has noted he is also factually incorrect on a number of key points, which makes his letter a simple polemic from an idiot.
As befits somebody who held the bizarre role of ‘Professor of Economic Geography.’
I’m watching Sky news. I don’t know who the speaker is, but she’s evil. I mean fully fucking evil. Right now she’s doing the whole climate NIMBYism thing. China USA blah blah blah.
But that’s not the evil thing. After commenting that Europe is so “sclerotic” (yawn) that we should do a deal with Trump where we kowtow to his highness in exchange for reduced tariffs, she then said, and I quote, “Zelenskyy is going to have to realise that this war needs a diplomatic solution, rather than a land grab”.
Rather than a land grab. I mean. Where do you start. Who’s doing the land grab? Angry goose meme. But of course she wasn’t challenged on this, because the West is terrified of those twats in the Kremlin.
Hence Zelensky is getting closer to developing a nuclear bomb
Her comments might be a bit offensive, but does she deserve to be nuked?
Probably. I don't see how getting a primitive nuclear device helps Ukraine, they need to deliver it as well and even if they do, Putin will retaliate either with full-blown nukes or by "accidentally" hitting a nuclear power station. The west left support for Ukraine far too late, in hindsight the time to have stopped Putin was right at the beginning when all his tanks were stuck in a convoy on the roads.
You don't build one, you build a dozen.
And you don't use it, you just ring up the White House and tell them "unless you continue to support us, we will detonate one of these on the Black Sea."
One single nuclear test like that and the entire world is in chaos. Stock markets down 50% overnight. People fighting each other in the shops for the last loo rolls and tinned beans. Half the population of western cities fleeing en masse to the countryside. Panic in the streets.
Ukraine need to play hardball now. It's the only way to prevent themselves being strongarmed into a deal that favours Russia.
Clearly some people on here are desperate for WW3 ..🥴🤨
It is somewhat hard to see how the situation above is better for the rest of the world than a suboptimal peace deal.
As I've pointed out many times, the west giving in to Putin's nuclear blackmail has made the world a much more dangerous place. Now every tinpot regime with expansionist ideas will realise that having nukes means the civilised world will just give in to whatever they wish. Why spend billions on a military that can often be defeated - and which can turn against you - and which puts you in hock to supplier countries, when you can build a nuke for less? Delivery systems are probably more difficult as NK has shown, but just having a nuke adds a great deal of uncertainty for anyone trying to stop you.
Putin was never going to use nukes over Ukraine. Heck, he hasn't even used them after Kursk.
I expect nuclear non-proliferation to go the way of the Dodo.
I hope the farmers are successful in getting the government to back down on their inheritance tax policy.
Don't f*** with Farmers. Farmers are licensed to carry firearms.
Licenced.
Nope, in this case it is very much licensed.
I thought the past tense of to license was still licenced. My mistake and apologies, as you were.
Shouldn't it be me you should apologise to?
When pedantry leaves one with egg all over their face.
Agree. We aren't school children. We don't need a pedant correcting our spelling. Even more embarrassing when wrong. Maybe making this error will stop the constant and needless correction of our grammar (except where a good joke can be had)..
On the subject of AR, this letter in the FT makes a good point:
I don't agree with his reasoning, which is not supported by any evidence other than assertion. Land is not worth anything unless you sell it, or need a mortgage on it. So it shouldn't affect cash flow.
"Land is not worth anything unless you sell it". Quite a novel approach to value if I may say so. I suppose in this view nothing is worth anything unless you sell it. Fortunately Paul Cheshire's words represent a sounder approach to land value than yours
The point, which you and he have missed, is that the value of unmortgaged land has no bearing on cash flow either way. Nor does it make or lose any money unless it is sold. So that is a clearly false elision and faulty reasoning.
As @Richard_Tyndall has noted he is also factually incorrect on a number of key points, which makes his letter a simple polemic from an idiot.
As befits somebody who held the bizarre role of ‘Professor of Economic Geography.’
Just like houses, companies and other assets, it can be borrowed against. The lesson of the last 2-3 decades has been soaring asset values based on only a small proportions of the asset being on the market at any one time and asset holders releasing that inflated value by borrowing against it. See housing market. Demand > supply, house prices rise, house owners remortgage to fund BTL purchases, demand >> supply, prices rise.... Zuckerberg etc only releasing tiny proportions of the equity they hold to maintain the share price.
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Could the country have survived those previous strikes going on much longer though?
Yes, easily.
Public sympathy was not really with the strikers either.
I think it absolutely was with the NHS workers. The government lost that strike.
Nurses perhaps. Doctors, nope....
So we agree that continuing the nurses strike was wrong?
Indeed. The Nurses shouldn't have continued their strikes...
Okay but they weren’t going to stop. So you agree it was right to get them stopped or not?
It was better that they stopped. But not at any cost. Labours decision has resulted in a vast transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector.
That’s not right or wrong per se. It’s a political choice
How much money did the Tories lose the country by not settling the pay rises in the first place? What an utterly pointless battle that was.
I think you are assuming here that giving in to pay demands prevents strikes. It seems to me that the reverse is true - if unions see that striking works, more strikes ensue.
Well, in the NHS strikes have stopped.
There was a change of Government. Part of the reason for the strikes had gone away.
Exactly, the new government re-opened negotiations rather than continue the debilitating stand off.
LOL. No. Part of the reason for the strikes was purely political. To get rid of the Tory Government. Once that had happened that reason was gone. Having demanded 35% they settled for far less. Funny that.
The Scottish Juniors accepted a 12% rise well before the Westminster election.
If the Tories had offered that, then it too would have probably been accepted.
The strikes were not being directed by radical leaders, they were grass roots grievances, hence the 98% vote from the Juniors to strike.
Yeah. You carry on believing that. I suppose all those 35% demands were simply our imagination.
They were a negotiating position. Hardly unusual. The Conservative government refused to engage in any negotiations. The Tories either wanted the strikes, or were refusing to engage with reality.
Labour can arguably be criticised for not driving a harder bargain, given the fiscal state of the country, but the Tory position wasn't tenable.
If someone stakes an unreasonable starting point sometimes the right thing to do is not to engage
"I too had visit from police over tweet, says writer Julie Bindel reveals that officers visited her home over an alleged hate crime after a complaint ‘from a transgender man in the Netherlands’"
"Welsh Government vows to change ‘beliefs and behaviour of the white majority’ Labour’s ant-racist action plan aims to ‘build an inclusive society for all our black, Asian and minority ethnic people’"
The Tories' problem is that they had 14 years to do something about thought-non-crime and didn't.
So often, they were all talk and no action. Repeatedly, I’m left wondering what the Conservatives thought they were there for, other than enjoying the fruits of office.
I think many were secretly embarrassed at being Conservatives and couldn't bring themselves to act to deliver for their base; the fact their members and voters were not only increased the contempt.
In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.
Comments
As @Richard_Tyndall has noted he is also factually incorrect on a number of key points, which makes his letter a simple polemic from an idiot.
As befits somebody who held the bizarre role of ‘Professor of Economic Geography.’
When pedantry leaves one with egg all over their face.
Putin was never going to use nukes over Ukraine. Heck, he hasn't even used them after Kursk.
I expect nuclear non-proliferation to go the way of the Dodo.
See housing market. Demand > supply, house prices rise, house owners remortgage to fund BTL purchases, demand >> supply, prices rise....
Zuckerberg etc only releasing tiny proportions of the equity they hold to maintain the share price.
That’s not right or wrong per se. It’s a political choice
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/16/are-cancer-survivors-less-likely-to-develop-alzheimers
NEW THREAD
In that sense, it's a bit similar to the difference between the CofE clergy and laity.
"I'm the chief passenger, not the Fat Controller."