cobran20

Martin Armstrong's Economic Writings

3652 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

That's one of the reasons I never bought into the frenzy in Oz. I'd essentially be taking out a margin loan on an asset I'm not overly confident with.

Councils from what I have seen are ruthless when it comes to rates, zoning, etc. so you have that to deal with too.

 

IIRC postage stamps used to be gold-backed, I understand the UPU-issued stamps are still gold-backed. I'm surprised Armstrong wasn't aware of that (or at least mentioned it).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armstrong's German might not be so good. Each apartment is actually 60 to 88 square meters: "Auch hier sind die Wohnungen zwischen 60 und 88 Quadratmeter groß"

The apartment complex is 470 square meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tor said:

Armstrong's German might not be so good. Each apartment is actually 60 to 88 square meters: "Auch hier sind die Wohnungen zwischen 60 und 88 Quadratmeter groß"

The apartment complex is 470 square meters.

Sure. But the main point is that the government is spending tax payers money to buy votes from non-residents. Then they wonder why parties like France's FNP are so popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tor said:

Armstrong's German might not be so good. Each apartment is actually 60 to 88 square meters: "Auch hier sind die Wohnungen zwischen 60 und 88 Quadratmeter groß"

The apartment complex is 470 square meters.

Yeah that figure sounded a bit weird. 60-88sqm is a reasonable size (but smaller than what I'd want to live in if I was buying a place).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

Yeah that figure sounded a bit weird. 60-88sqm is a reasonable size (but smaller than what I'd want to live in if I was buying a place).

From memory 60 is average in Poland and I think 80 was average for Australia for apartments. We currently have a 95 and it is huge even by Australian standards. I think 88 would do a family with 2 kids comfortably. 3 kids if you make 2 of them share a room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, tor said:

From memory 60 is average in Poland and I think 80 was average for Australia for apartments. We currently have a 95 and it is huge even by Australian standards. I think 88 would do a family with 2 kids comfortably. 3 kids if you make 2 of them share a room.

Couldn't be fecked starting a new thread but thought this may be of interest:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-16/immigrants-flood-japan-record-pace

With 2 kids I think you need to target around 80-90sqm for a comfortable size, add another 20sqm for 3 kids. The annoying thing with newer Russian apartments is that they are not well designed (i.e. 3 room 200sqm and not many windows). To get something the size I want I probably need to get two adjoining apartments in an older building and knock out a wall or floor. Anything over 150sqm is likely to be more than most people's needs.

 

Edited by Mr Medved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/04/2017 at 9:21 AM, cobran20 said:

Sure. But the main point is that the government is spending tax payers money to buy votes from non-residents. Then they wonder why parties like France's FNP are so popular.

I guess if the non residents are already in your country you only have a couple of choices. If you choose to try and integrate them then permanent housing seems a good idea to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tor said:

I guess if the non residents are already in your country you only have a couple of choices. If you choose to try and integrate them then permanent housing seems a good idea to me.

Why would you spend tax payers money on persons who have not qualified for permanent residency?

Are you Ok providing expensive accommodation to somebody who for all you know may be a criminal, terrorist, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

Why would you spend tax payers money on persons who have not qualified for permanent residency?

Are you Ok providing expensive accommodation to somebody who for all you know may be a criminal, terrorist, etc?

Given the percentages? yeah pretty much. The people are in country, push them into a ghetto and you tend to have results which keep "honest tax payers" scared and police employed (the takeover of the australian bikie gangs would be a classic example of this and I think has been studied to death).

Get them jobs and paying taxes and why shouldn't they vote.

One actual criminal/terrorist isolated is screwed without language skills and without a "take any chance" personnel resource. Remove contact from the local criminals and ensure the identifying non residents don't get into a situation where they will form a gang because there is no obvious path out and you starve the ringleaders of resources and they tend to die quietly in the background.

Or do you think the police outreach programs are all politically motivated to look good? Maybe you ought to hang out with some of the police that do try to fight the crime rings. I have and I don't think those guys were lying, they seemed pretty serious and dedicated guys who are in the cream of the Australian police system.

Those guys also cost a sh*tload compared to a bloody apartment.

I suspect you are falling into the "debtors prison" idea. It might seem "fair or just" or whatever to punish people but if it is no good for society sometimes you just have to accept that society gives you personally more than is lost by someone else getting something you don't think they deserve.

Obviously if you disagree with how your taxes are spent you should leave the country and not pay taxes supporting that regime. It isn't particularly hard. Any reason not too is basically that your society gives you more than you are losing and so you are just bitching that you don't want your special status reduced _compared_ to some other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" The press is all over Trump in saying he is abandoning his promises and all his positions are equally malleable. Obama reversed every position he took from closing Guantanamo to the NSA. Obama accused McCain would tax health benefits. He did what McCain said he wanted to do. The press never attacked Obama. "
 

Armstrong has given up on Trump I think. Saying "Trump isn't bad because he is doing the same as the guy I detest" is the first step to hating Trump. I think before the 4 years are up it will be a hatred that rivals his hatred of Hillary personally. Blaming the media for showing Trump is the same as Obama will burn out once the meaning sinks in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, tor said:

Given the percentages? yeah pretty much. The people are in country, push them into a ghetto and you tend to have results which keep "honest tax payers" scared and police employed (the takeover of the australian bikie gangs would be a classic example of this and I think has been studied to death).

Get them jobs and paying taxes and why shouldn't they vote.

One actual criminal/terrorist isolated is screwed without language skills and without a "take any chance" personnel resource. Remove contact from the local criminals and ensure the identifying non residents don't get into a situation where they will form a gang because there is no obvious path out and you starve the ringleaders of resources and they tend to die quietly in the background.

Or do you think the police outreach programs are all politically motivated to look good? Maybe you ought to hang out with some of the police that do try to fight the crime rings. I have and I don't think those guys were lying, they seemed pretty serious and dedicated guys who are in the cream of the Australian police system.

Those guys also cost a sh*tload compared to a bloody apartment.

I suspect you are falling into the "debtors prison" idea. It might seem "fair or just" or whatever to punish people but if it is no good for society sometimes you just have to accept that society gives you personally more than is lost by someone else getting something you don't think they deserve.

Obviously if you disagree with how your taxes are spent you should leave the country and not pay taxes supporting that regime. It isn't particularly hard. Any reason not too is basically that your society gives you more than you are losing and so you are just bitching that you don't want your special status reduced _compared_ to some other people.

So why have borders and just let anybody in? When post war 'legal immigrants' arrived in Australia, they were housed in barracks with only the most basics until they could stand on their own and move out. As I said, people should not be surprised that La Pen, Brexit, etc are occurring. I expect you're going to witness another Crusade within our lifetime,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

So why have borders and just let anybody in? When post war 'legal immigrants' arrived in Australia, they were housed in barracks with only the most basics until they could stand on their own and move out. As I said, people should not be surprised that La Pen, Brexit, etc are occurring. I expect you're going to witness another Crusade within our lifetime,

Oh I agree, borders are a ridiculous idea simply there to use the working class as capital for the people in control. If the people in control didn't benefit from the rules stopping free movement why would they work so damn hard to stop it? I mean if you think the government cares about your well being then sure you can go for that but I thought you were an anti government involvement in the free market kind of person. Why should the government not be allowed to force restaurant cleanliness checks (which I seem to recall you thinking were an encumberment to free enterprise) but be allowed to prevent people moving to other countries easily?

Crusades have typically been for the benefit of people like me, mid level importance, we want out from under and it would be nice if the king wasted our competition in an area he has incomplete control over. Crusades don't do much for the proletariat as far as I recall, certainly the average working man is more likely to die in a crusade than to benefit from it. I will almost certainly make money from your hypothesised crusades, you can only hope that australia is remote enough that your standard of living only decreases rather than evaporates completely.

I just don't see you acting to benefit from a crusade or from the exclusionary politics you seem fond of so I don't understand where you are coming from I guess. It's like you've given up and just wish there was some kind of "it will stay the same forever" stance. And you ever even lived in an era when "it'll stay the same" was a reality. The boer war kind of ruined that idea and the first made it pretty damn obvious didn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tor said:

Oh I agree, borders are a ridiculous idea simply there to use the working class as capital for the people in control. If the people in control didn't benefit from the rules stopping free movement why would they work so damn hard to stop it? I mean if you think the government cares about your well being then sure you can go for that but I thought you were an anti government involvement in the free market kind of person. Why should the government not be allowed to force restaurant cleanliness checks (which I seem to recall you thinking were an encumberment to free enterprise) but be allowed to prevent people moving to other countries easily?

Crusades have typically been for the benefit of people like me, mid level importance, we want out from under and it would be nice if the king wasted our competition in an area he has incomplete control over. Crusades don't do much for the proletariat as far as I recall, certainly the average working man is more likely to die in a crusade than to benefit from it. I will almost certainly make money from your hypothesised crusades, you can only hope that australia is remote enough that your standard of living only decreases rather than evaporates completely.

I just don't see you acting to benefit from a crusade or from the exclusionary politics you seem fond of so I don't understand where you are coming from I guess. It's like you've given up and just wish there was some kind of "it will stay the same forever" stance. And you ever even lived in an era when "it'll stay the same" was a reality. The boer war kind of ruined that idea and the first made it pretty damn obvious didn't it?

As you may have noticed from the upheaval happening in Europe and elsewhere, most people of a country like to keep their cultural identity and standards under which they want to live. Australia, like the US & Europe are western, secular societies. The inhabitants are showing their clear displeasure at having people from other cultures imposed on them, who disrespect the local norms.

I would bet serious money that if a referendum was held in Australia, USA, Europe (or just about most countries) on whether their country should have open borders, it would fail miserably.

I have already explained my view many times on the role of government in a free enterprise environment. I won't waste time repeating ad nauseum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now