Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Hmmmm, if only the actual logic was that moral. I'd have been optimistic that under Gorbachev they would have promoted regional independence anyway. The US had no right to "crush" communism purely because it was an ideology they couldn't understand and feared. I also would argue that if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, if Vietnam was toned down and SALT2 talks progressed as planned, the whole process of demilitarisation would have sped up. Your attitude highlights the difference in goals. Would Khrushchev have felt compelled to crush the risings in Hungary and Prague except to show strength before the US? I don't agree that USSR attitude would remain undeterred if the US toned down.
    As nice as that vision of the world is for you i think i'd prefer the almost complete dominance that the west won.
    You want all the freedoms of the western world, but your not prepared to fight to create it.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I have the convenience of already living very close to work



    They're also doing the best by eking them out of this bubble of childhood, or are you trying to be worse than university and having people in their thirties unable to adult properly through sheltering parents?



    Basically what I'm doing, or at least planning on trying to do



    As Rakas said, the cold war didn't just end, it was won by the West. Personally I see it more as being dormant with a dominant West. The other thing that has to be remembered is nuking Japan won't primarily have been to deal with Japan, it was a "don't **** with us" message to Stalin. I would also call peace safer than war on the whole.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And Truman was devastated that Japan surrendered as it meant he couldn't drop any more bombs. Well, its skimming the truth a bit when it came so close, the sinking of the Russian nuclear sub SHOULD have resulted in MAD, that kind of near miss can't be concerned a success.

    Interesting though that you arent bothered Japan was nuked as a proxy for the USSR.*
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As nice as that vision of the world is for you i think i'd prefer the almost complete dominance that the west won.
    You want all the freedoms of the western world, but your not prepared to fight to create it.
    I have a higher threshold for what I deem a necessary war. Though in addition to the difference in opinion over how the USSR would have ended up with US demilitarisation, complete dominance is impossible. Vietnam, Cuba, the Middle East have highlighted where Western influence is severely limited and dominance impossible. Hell, from the USSRs formation anti-Western sentiment was inevitable, backing the Greens in the civil war.

    Entry of former Iron Curtain countries into the EU can be considered a great success. The installation of an authoritarian imperial Putin in Russia isn't. Applying the US' attitude abroad will lead to many more wars in the future, especially with guerilla warfare.

    As I said previously, considering the near misses in Europe during the Cold War, its ambitious to call it peaceful, we came far too close to MAD, so while the result is on the face of it preferable, it doesn't justify the length and cost of the Cold War.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    That is not true, the average monthly mortgage repayment in Britain is £687 where the average monthly rent in Britain is £816, an initial analysis shows renting wastes money. I will accept using average does not give an accurate picture because averages is distorted by extremes in property values, but when the average three-bedroom, semi-detached house is taken, it is cheaper to pay the monthly mortgage rates than the monthly rental rates for the property, that depends on the mortgage time span being taken as the UK average of 25 years.

    But we can deeper, if the difference is monthly cost does not matter, the important point is the relative wealth of the individuals. The difference of a monthly mortgage compared to monthly renting is small, the difference is not going to generate more money than the appreciation in house prices, nor will the difference be invested, the likley outcome is the difference will be spent on leisure because the value of the difference is small. When the value is spent on leisure a mortgage will always work out better value than leisure because leisure is not an investment.

    You assertion does not work for most groups of individuals, for the poorest individuals the difference will not generate more than appreciation because the difference is spent on leisure: your point does not hold. For the middle classes with medium levels of wealth the difference is still small as a value to invest, and it tends to be the case a mortgage is better value because average appreciation is 5%, when year-on-year quarterly values are compared, which is far higher than interest rates in a bank, or the return on investments on the stock market: your point does not hold. For the wealthiest in society mortgages are chosen because appreciation in the price of property is of little value, it works out better value to take out a mortgage at an interest rate below the rate of inflation, which makes buying property free in a way, and frees up capital that can be invested in other things to accumulate more wealth. In a few, very niche circumstances it may work out better value to rent, but those circumstances are scarce.
    1) Your assumption that the money won't be invested is kinda funky and defeats the purpose; certainly if you need to make that assumption for your point to hold, I think it's simply wrong to call renting 'waste'; rather, what you're saying is spending on leisure is 'waste'.
    2) "average appreciation is 5%" - this is unsustainable and is due to a large bubble in London; furthermore, property ownership incurs costs which don't exist when renting and investing - maintenance is not cheap and can crush any long-term profits. You're also ignoring the price of the mortgage in this.
    3) "which is far higher than interest rates in a bank, or the return on investments on the stock market" - this really depends. Property is not a risk-free investment (it can probably be said that the risk of losing the entire value of the property is negligible but the risk of losing the entirety of the buyer's capital is very real - look at the huge numbers of people who ended up in negative equity last time a housing bubble burst. Furthermore, I would say it's probably possible to realise 5% long-term with similar risk levels to property in the markets (even though 5% is not an appropriate figure to use - see above).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    They're also doing the best by eking them out of this bubble of childhood, or are you trying to be worse than university and having people in their thirties unable to adult properly through sheltering parents?
    There is always a time for children to leave, but parents forcing their child out of the house straight after university, or charging the child rent for living at home when the child's funds are low, and when the child does not have a stable job are bad parents. The sensible decision is for the parents to allow a child to live rent-free at home to build up enough funds to take out a mortgage on a home, when the child has the funds for a mortgage the child can move out. If the child save properly the child will be out of the family house before the age of 27 to live in a house with their own mortgage.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    1) Your assumption that the money won't be invested is kinda funky and defeats the purpose; certainly if you need to make that assumption for your point to hold, I think it's simply wrong to call renting 'waste'; rather, what you're saying is spending on leisure is 'waste'.
    2) "average appreciation is 5%" - this is unsustainable and is due to a large bubble in London; furthermore, property ownership incurs costs which don't exist when renting and investing - maintenance is not cheap and can crush any long-term profits. You're also ignoring the price of the mortgage in this.
    3) "which is far higher than interest rates in a bank, or the return on investments on the stock market" - this really depends. Property is not a risk-free investment (it can probably be said that the risk of losing the entire value of the property is negligible but the risk of losing the entirety of the buyer's capital is very real - look at the huge numbers of people who ended up in negative equity last time a housing bubble burst. Furthermore, I would say it's probably possible to realise 5% long-term with similar risk levels to property in the markets (even though 5% is not an appropriate figure to use - see above).
    It is an assumption but it is a clear assumption, when the difference is in the region of £2000 a year, it is likely the money will be spent on a holiday, there are a lot of investment scheme where £2000 can be worth more than the appreciation on a home in a desirable area. Blaming rising house prices on London is factually wring, excluding London, the average increase in house prices over their 2007 value was 18.6% in the South East, 11.5% in East Anglia, 9% in the South West, 3.3% in the East Midlands, and 2.1% in the West Midlands. There are variations over the country, but the appreciation is difficult to beat for an individual with a little bit of money who does not have investment schemes in place.

    You are still using very niche circumstances, negative equity is a problem for 1.8% of households in the UK, and negative equity itself is not a terrible thing if the owner can afford the mortgage repayments. It would cost more than a mortgage in that case but when the monthly rental value of a property tends to be 1% of the property's value, a mortgage will nearly always be cheaper because in a year a mortgage is not 12% of the property's value.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    It is an assumption but it is a clear assumption, when the difference is in the region of £2000 a year, it is likely the money will be spent on a holiday, there are a lot of investment scheme where £2000 can be worth more than the appreciation on a home in a desirable area. Blaming rising house prices on London is factually wring, excluding London, the average increase in house prices over their 2007 value was 18.6% in the South East, 11.5% in East Anglia, 9% in the South West, 3.3% in the East Midlands, and 2.1% in the West Midlands. There are variations over the country, but the appreciation is difficult to beat for an individual with a little bit of money who does not have investment schemes in place.

    You are still using very niche circumstances, negative equity is a problem for 1.8% of households in the UK, and negative equity itself is not a terrible thing if the owner can afford the mortgage repayments. It would cost more than a mortgage in that case but when the monthly rental value of a property tends to be 1% of the property's value, a mortgage will nearly always be cheaper because in a year a mortgage is not 12% of the property's value, and this is confirmed in research which shows buying a house is 23% cheaper than renting a similar house when all things are accounted.
    I am not using very niche circumstances. Let me ask you this - what were negative equity rates in the US circa 2009? We'll see that position in London soon, possibly elsewhere in the country as a fall in London housing prices leads to fall in prices elsewhere.

    Also, naturally I agree that buying is better than renting if the money will be otherwise frittered, but that's basically the conclusion 'people who invest their money will have more money than people who spend their money assuming ceteris paribus' which is completely banal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I am not using very niche circumstances. Let me ask you this - what were negative equity rates in the US circa 2009? We'll see that position in London soon, possibly elsewhere in the country as a fall in London housing prices leads to fall in prices elsewhere.

    Also, naturally I agree that buying is better than renting if the money will be otherwise frittered, but that's basically the conclusion 'people who invest their money will have more money than people who spend their money assuming ceteris paribus' which is completely banal.
    You are using niche circumstances, following the 2008 financial crash, half a million homes in the UK were in negative equity, that is 1.8% of households; a small number. When the maths are done, renting works out better if a dubious assumption is made about finding a long-term investment scheme that pays something like a 7% return, or the mortgage taken out has a high LTV score.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You are using niche circumstances, following the 2008 financial crash, half a million homes in the UK were in negative equity, that is 1.8% of households; a small number. When the maths are done, renting works out better if a dubious assumption is made about finding a long-term investment scheme that pays something like a 7% return, or the mortgage taken out has a high LTV score.
    Okay, so let's assume a 5% average property appreciation (I'm sure you'll agree that a recent snapshot is unlikely to paint a full picture). Let's then subtract about 2% from that for the costs of a mortgage (fixed rate mortgages can be had at about 1.5% at the moment IIRC, and then you have setup costs etc - variable rate mortgages are quite likely to see a rate increase in the near future I would think - though I'm no expert on how likely we are to see rate increases in the coming years), and then maybe about 0.5% for maintenance costs etc. The rate to beat is 2.5%, which one can pretty easily get even in an economic climate where many sovereign bonds are paying negative interest rates.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, so let's assume a 5% average property appreciation (I'm sure you'll agree that a recent snapshot is unlikely to paint a full picture). Let's then subtract about 2% from that for the costs of a mortgage (fixed rate mortgages can be had at about 1.5% at the moment IIRC, and then you have setup costs etc - variable rate mortgages are quite likely to see a rate increase in the near future I would think - though I'm no expert on how likely we are to see rate increases in the coming years), and then maybe about 0.5% for maintenance costs etc. The rate to beat is 2.5%, which one can pretty easily get even in an economic climate where many sovereign bonds are paying negative interest rates.
    You have missed out the cost of renting, for renting to be cheaper, appreciation minus the costs of the mortgage plus the cost of maintenance needs to be less than the return on the initial investment minus the cost of renting.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    You have missed out the cost of renting, for renting to be cheaper, appreciation minus the costs of the mortgage plus the cost of maintenance needs to be less than the return on the initial investment minus the cost of renting.
    Ah yes, my mistake. I suppose it depends to a significant degree how likely one is to move house.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Next time could be your local election where you will be able to vote Green! Hope the trip was all you hoped for.
    I'm not living in the UK though and I don't think I will be in the foreseeable future. I may go back for a few weeks next year but not sure if I could register to vote despite not being a resident.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Stellar job, leaders of the Western Europe!

    Police arrest 900 Syrians in England and Wales for crimes including rape and child abuse
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/695...nd-child-abuse
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Will someone PLEASE shove this article in front of Mr. Beardy and see if he has literally any answer at all? I don't want to live in a ****ing one-party state.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Will someone PLEASE shove this article in front of Mr. Beardy and see if he has literally any answer at all? I don't want to live in a ****ing one-party state.
    Wait. You support those of us wanting to stop third world immigration?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Wait. You support those of us wanting to stop third world immigration?
    Ah no, sorry - twas meant to be a link but TSR done goofed.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    Would have read it but saw "24 minute read"


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a bit exagerrated, but yeah, it's a good article and he's a good journalist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Would have read it but saw "24 minute read"


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Was more like 5-10 at my reading pace anyway, 24 seems ridiculous.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    That article is a bit tl;dr.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    And Truman was devastated that Japan surrendered as it meant he couldn't drop any more bombs. Well, its skimming the truth a bit when it came so close, the sinking of the Russian nuclear sub SHOULD have resulted in MAD, that kind of near miss can't be concerned a success.

    Interesting though that you arent bothered Japan was nuked as a proxy for the USSR.*
    Not at all, 100,000 odd dead is better than the dead of operation downfall, something people like to ignore, but that itself would pale compared to a soviet invasion of western Europe.

    You anti nuclear lot seem to love crying about a few thousand dead but would wish millions dead in their place.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 15, 2016
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.