mattiloy
-
Posts
2,199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by mattiloy
-
-
11 minutes ago, Neil said:
spot the difference?
does the company have that profit to invest?
Do you honestly believe that the likes of Arriva - wholly owned by deutsche bahn - or Thames water - biggest shareholder a canadian pension fund - are investing more of their profits back into their uk businesses or the wider economy than the state?
I’m trying to avoid personal insults this time but my goodness you are making it difficult.
-
And you never have to admit you are, or have been, a landlord.
-
The thing is. As an asset class, the housing market has benefitted enormously from low interest rates the last few decades. But so has the stock market. And unlike a house funds are low maintenance and diversified. If you’re unlucky, your house can literally fall down. Its honestly a no brainer.
-
17 minutes ago, cellar said:
I would personally prefer investing in funds, but I don't think this is correct. Will do the maths properly later on, but off the top of my head it's not even anywhere near 200k.
It is. I googled and found the last 20 years s&p 500 growth rate at 10.6% interest compounded annually. Stick 20k initial with zero additional contributions into a compound interest calculator on a 25 year term and see what you get. -
4 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:
Railways, buses, and utility provision all make sense to me to be nationalised. They naturally have a monopoly anyway because of the infrastructure requirements so the general public can't ever get the "benefits" of privatisation/capitalism for them.
Yes. Thats the thing.If you buy a bic pen, and you get home and within 2 minutes of writing your bic pen bursts, you have both the right of refund and the choice to buy a different pen next time.
If you’re commuting and your northern rail train arrives 20 minutes late you get neither refund nor can you take a different train tomorrow.
Requiring the building of a whole new competing infrastructure, the barriers to entry are enormous and could only ever be paid for by the govt, as indeed the existing infrastructure was. So its a permanent monopoly. The normal market mechanism of consumer choice -> efficiency is broken. So the choice is only do we run this monopoly for profit, or for the public good.
Even if you set it up as a solely profit seeking company but owned by the state, whilst it would be as sh*t as it is today, at least the dividends would go back to the treasury. As it is, its both sh*t, and all the profits it makes end up in the pockets of shareholders. In many cases these are overseas nationalised companies. So your excess fares are directly subsidising the low fares in Germany for instance (arriva).
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, steviewevie said:
About f**king time. Not sure if the crumbs dropping from the table are so sparse that I’m imagining it, but I want to believe that it sounds like there is emotion in his voice here. Like its what he really thought all along. One can only hope. That being one of the world’s biggest c**ts is just an act and behind it lies a heart of gold, as his supporters would have us believe. I guess we’ll find out . -
6 hours ago, cellar said:
I think he said property value was £90k when bought, and £240/£260k now.
But if the deposit (£20k) was all he ever paid himself, then it is a better ROI than you'd get from any fund that I can think of, even with the cost of the loan (I assume about £25k on average over the last 20 years).
But that is kind of the sh*tty part of BTL, and what sets it apart from other types of investments, is that you're using someone else's money to invest for you. Even if that £90k house suddenly dropped to £40k, and the above assumption is true, its still 100% profit in real terms for the landlord, and the renters money has absorbed the £50k shock. (Actually realised this isn't true as forgot to factor in the cost of the loan - but still, its only a £5k loss compared to what would have been a £75k loss).
So s&p 500 has delivered about 10% annual growth in the same period. This gives 240k off the initial 20k investment without any additional contribution.So roughly equivalent (if the claim that rent has only covered mortgage repayments is to be believed). Less maintenance costs, time and energy, and the fact that again, you’re holding all your dough in one illiquid asset at a time when the price of that asset is at best going to stagnate in the next decade, and worse case devalue (and be a big faff to sell, possibly with additional taxes) - there is a clear winner.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, stuie said:
This started because I said I thought property was a better option than a stocks related pension so I don't know where you got the altruistic reasons from - what started as a negative equity accident is now my route to a more wealthy retirement but I'm fully aware of my social responsibility and I'm not a leech.
Market rental value is now about £300 p/m more than LHA pays in the area so I could re-let the property if I wish to, but I'm happy knowing I'm providing a family with a nice home and building my 'pension' pot at the same time.
If that makes me a bad person, I don't really care.
Interested in how much in % the value has gone up if you’d guess?Even given strong performance of house prices in some parts of the uk in the last 20 years, surely sticking it in global funds would have performed at least as well if not better? (after paying interest on your loan and other associated costs) and without the admin and everybody thinking you’re evil. Plus the fact that you now have all your dough in one illiquid asset at a time when property prices have fallen off a cliff, with the prospect of an incoming Labour party scratching around for ways to boost the coffers without increasing taxes on workers (cc capital gains, dividends, stamp duty). Those index funds not looking so bad now are they Mr Monopoly?
-
6 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:
Not with fptp it won’t be
No. With FPTP, its the uk now.What kind of mad extreme scary policies would the german right do if they got into government? Leave the EU maybe? Put refugees on a plane to Rwanda?..
-
-
10 hours ago, steviewevie said:
Surely the impact on the global economy will depend on how much disruption to ships travelling through suez and how long goes on for?
Anyway, I understand why US/UK had to do something, they had given Houthis a warning, so had to carry it through...just to show who's boss etc. Problem is Houthis are not the sort to just give in, they are battle hardened after years of civil war and fighting with Saudi Arabia, so we could be opening a can of worms. Of course if there is a ceasefire tomorrow in Gaza and the start of negotiations towards a resolution then all this would likely go away.
Do you understand that? I dont.We live in a sick world. I’m sad for you if you understand it.
-
9 hours ago, steviewevie said:
my fave academic
Wow she’s even dumber in interview -
31 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:
Inflation isn't the only reason given. And it does impact inflation so... I am missing your point.
Thats okay, some people need a bit of extra help sometimes. Reading can be hard!The impact on inflation is negligible. The rate of inflation will still fall roughly in line with BoE’s expectations. It doesn’t justify war with Yemen.
-
1 minute ago, Neil said:
extra cost normally comes from adding value there's no added value from bigger shipping costs.
You’ve missed the point of my post.The impact on inflation of increasing shipping costs for containers diverting from the Suez Canal is marginal.
Politicians are bringing up the spectre of a new inflation shock when justifying the bombing of Yemen. Which disingenuously plays on the publics memory and fear of last winter’s inflation shock and which they either know to be untrue, or they are are lying.
I think lying to the public so that you can drop bombs is bad.
-
Seeing plenty of this inflation argument being touted as justification for bombing Yemen.
Europe receives around 15-20% of its oil imports via the Suez Canal. Imports also forming a fraction of the oil supply.
The UK figure is even less.
The energy mix puts oil at around 30% of energy use in Europe.
LNG reserves are much higher than normal because of a mild winter and over egging it because of last winters fuel shock.
The oil price will go up a little bit, Europe will use more of the bountiful LNG it’s sitting on. Energy prices will increase a little bit, but not to a point where there is noticeable cost push inflation.
As for goods - the ratio of average container shipping costs to average container value is more than 10-1. That is to say the cost of shipping goods is less than 10% of the value of the goods.
Imported goods using the Suez Canal account for something like 30% of Europe’s imported goods.
Imported goods then account for a fraction of total goods.
It’s not going to cause big cost push inflation. Politicians are either stupid or lying.
-
4 hours ago, Ozanne said:
I think it's because of her previous experience as a shadow cabinet member and her current role in MH. They want to bring her back on board in some form and keeps the current shadow cab member for MH free to shadow the Tories. I would assume anyway, either way it's great Labour are putting focus on this.
It’s such a shame because it’s really important and it sounds like Labour are putting serious resources into it. Just to let a low quality former failed lib dem candidate bound in and make a complete bollocks of it.And it’s a good example of why folks who think it’s all electioneering and that Starmer harbours radical ambitions are going to be disappointed.
Even if Keir himself is a secret radical (he’s not), his lieutenants are all poor quality blairites. Any intent towards radicalism will be suffocated to death under the pillows of the unoriginal, inadequate blairite decision makers who are trusted with its implementation.
It’ll be a Goveian radicalism rather than Bevanite one.
-
11 hours ago, Neil said:
You were claiming that there'd be a green surge at the next election at labours expense. No sign of it.
3% could be massive in fptp. Without checking there must be 100+ marginals that have <= 3% majorities.That said, its not going to be uniformly distributed. It’ll be higher in leftie seats where the Labour majority is greater. So the impact should admittedly be small.
There is a chance though that they make inroads in some of the blue wall type seats that Labour are trying to win however. If I remember correctly they have already had surprisingly strong performance in the south east in the 2023 locals. If they overperform there they could keep Labour out of a handful of seats and if things get tighter as they usually do as election day looms, a handful of seats could be the difference between majority and plurality.
-
51 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
Plus the Greens have parachuted in a candidate from London which given they mucked up the council might not go down too well.
She is one of the few impressive greens though. Good in interviews, decent record in the London Assembly.I think she’ll win. I also think they have a chance in Bristol West. Starmer is a polarising figure whether you’ll admit it or not, and I expect that the concentration of people who really hate the direction the Labour party has gone in will secure those seats. Plus thanks to membership numbers and council representation the green party is richer and has more activists than before. If they concentrate their resources in those two seats they’ll win.
One major problem for the greens is always image- for example that they’ll put forward candidates like this.
A former tory candidate who apparently had a damascene conversion in both politics and identity in the last few years…
Now, not wishing to cast aspersions myself because it could be legit and then fair enough - its just bad politics, really calls into question the professionalism of the party. A lot of people are going to question the legitimacy of her motives and it is inevitable that the party will suffer nationally from her candidacy.
-
51 minutes ago, Neil said:
It's not quite the promised green surge s it?
3% to 6% in one parliament.Is 100% growth in vote share not a surge?
-
23 minutes ago, lost said:
Plus I think Taiwan is where the exisiting government fled during the Chinese civil war when the communists seized power so I guess they'd argue China should be handed back to them not the other way around.
Taiwan was where the nationalists fled and setup a fascist dictatorship which lasted until 1987 and was responsible for mass killings of Taiwanese leftists. -
19 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
Spineless stuff. And just a big slathering of unnecessary bureacracy which will no doubt let the ones who can afford the best lawyers to wriggle out of it. -
5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
she was on channel 4 last night.
There is this thing called for axis of resistance right? And they do want the destruction of Israel? Or is that all made up by the Jews so they can kill Arabs?
They are allies yes. That October the 7th was coordinated by Hamas, Iran and the Houthis together is a dangerous leap and based on nothing, so conspiratorial.It could become the WMD factor.
-
Just now, steviewevie said:
Sounds a bit conspiracyish
Its a simple deduction. A sensational, provocative claim without any citation made by an academic writing for a dark money right wing think tank = ulterior motive. The only real conjecture on my part is the motive. But its usually ultimately in order to bomb more sh*t. -
5 minutes ago, lost said:
Which bit is the conspiracy? that in Yemen there is a proxy war going on between Saudi and Iran? That Iran also funds Hamas or Iran can coordinate the groups it funds?
That Iran and the Houthis were in on October 7th because the Houthis had militarised islands in the gulf (a googling of that quickly shows that they’ve been doing this for years).Maybe the Houthis and Iran were in on it. But there is so far, zero evidence of that, so its pure conjecture and conspiracy theorist. This hawkish, right wing neolib academic is contributing one gentle nudge (amongst many to come from the MSM, thinktanks etc) to the reader to edge them into a mindset where regional escalation is an appropriate course of action. Thats how it works - trust me bro the houthis militarised some islands for the last few years, therefore they knew about october the 7th, so lets bomb their kids too!
news & politics:discussion
in Discussions
Posted
Would be a fine thing if I could. Unfortunately the history we’ve inherited has already been written by a bunch of bitter, selfish, economically illiterate chumps.