MartV Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 What is your intention with posting this? Are you hoping to change the minds of the people on the boards? If so, do you think this will work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathanm Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 It's a common mistake, you mean to write "crony" and write "free market" instead. Happens a lot, too bad the editor did not catch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartV Posted March 24, 2014 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 This is explained in 2 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexqr1 Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 Would you care to tell us your explanation of why a situation like the one in the image happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Marv you are post by post showing yourself up to be a world class idiot biased, and uniformed it is government interventions that led to houses multiplying in price by a factor of 10 between now and the 70s imagine how few homeless people there would be if houses cost a tenth of what they cost now, would be nice wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 might as well put this out for comparison. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Victims_of_the_1921_famine_in_Russia.jpg communism in a nut shell then the people can be asked if they would rather be in a tent city with plenty of food or a stack of dead bodies that died of starvation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 What is your intention with posting this? To antagonize. It's his way of lashing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Marv you are post by post showing yourself up to be a world class idiot biased, and uniformed it is government interventions that led to houses multiplying in price by a factor of 10 between now and the 70s imagine how few homeless people there would be if houses cost a tenth of what they cost now, would be nice wouldn't it? It almost brings me to tears, actually. One of my weird hobbies is collecting old mail-order house ephemera. Sears, Aladdin, a few others -- you used to be able to buy a whole house of out a catalog. They'd send it to you in a boxcar, and you'd go get it with a truck. Boards, paint, nails, the whole shebang. Even a 75-page instruction manual. They were extremely popular until 1940 or so. War rationing ended it once and for all, but the real death knell was building codes. There wasn't a particularly big safety problem. It's just that they cut into the niche carved out by developers and town planners. Here's one from 1912 (just before the Federal Reserve was created). I dream of building one. Just me and a hammer. Imagine what could be done nowadays, with factories churning out all of the modern construction materials, with boards in the kit cut to precise length (measured by lasers), and each piece counted by computerized scanners. A whole house-in-a-box. They started making them after Katrina. They were called Katrina Cottages. I'd live in one now if I could. The government shut them down, though. (You can buy the plans, and build one, just not in any urban area.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 It's interesting you bring up this topic Magnus. Pre-fab(ricated) homes as they were known were very popular here in Britain after the first and second world war. It allowed people on working class incomes to purchase and build their own homes very cheaply. It's funny really because the case against them now was that they didn't last very long. They supposedly only had a 20 year lifespan. Although I've seen many on the Dorset coast in England that are still standing and with occupants. Whilst today's modern home has at best a 60 year life span built into them with the full knowledge of the developer. The difference being that you could replace parts of your pre-fab in sections whilst still living in it. Whereas replacing the modern house would require ripping the whole thing down and spending a solid two months or more building a new one. I was heavily involved in the building industry for a number of years with a small business as a groundsman. Building regulations became so oppressive in the 90's after Tony Blairs succession to the political throne. That not only were small businesses like mine bought up (or discarded by their owners) by larger ones, that even the medium sized companies were taken over by the larger corps. I believe there are now only 4-5 large grounds companies that operate in London today. Barring the small guy that builds extensions, sheds or patios. Whereas there were upwards of around 30-40 companies back in the 90's. To give you an example of the worst regulation. Developers are now forced when building a new development to set aside 10% of the stock for 'social housing'. Sounds great huh? But the net effect is that no one who has the money to buy them wants to live around these welfare households. So they often become 'buy to lets', which means they house yet more welfare recipients, since the tenants can claim housing benefit to pay for the rent. I personally prefer to call these developments, 'matriarchal villages' myself. Adding to the predicament, it can take a developer upwards of 5-7 years to get a permit as he negotiates with his local council before he can build anything. Although I hear things may have improved in that direction more recently. Overall it just means less building goes on as demand sky rockets. Great for the big crony developers that manage to get all the contracts and permits of course. The irony of all this is that those that are working, even people like me on well above average incomes in London are either resorted to paying two thirds or more of their income on rent/mortgage or downsizing significantly. On the other hand welfare recipients get to enjoy subsidized living like my own parents paid for themselves back in the 70's and 80's. So yes, ridiculous meme frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Mate, that video is 50 minutes long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts