Reply to: Maggie was right

[AtW]

Like you I am never wrong

You said this: "You should not be allowed to fool people in this way, particularly after the lessons of the last dot com crash."

I assume here now that you did mean me by saying "you" and it was used in a more generic way meaning some people who do indeed fool investors.

[DodgyAgent]

They risky to the person who gets them you idiot!!! And if lots of people who can't afford the risk get them, then even people who lend them money (banks) get in trouble they did not expect!



When someone pays you salary or bonus, does it become your own money or it's some kind of debt in your twisted version of economics?

No it goes into a bank where it is then lent-usually on a permanent basis to Mrs Dodgy

Are you saying that I fooled the investor?

No I said the investor is a fool

Are you saying that we have no revenue streams?

I bet they are minimal

If so then you'd be wrong on both accounts.

Like you I am never wrong

[Mich the Tester]

I am sure someone with any education can say:

Income over 50 years £2,000,000
Expenditure over 50 years £1,999,999,

plus a property and a pension = very happy indeed.

Why do we have to "annualise" income and expenditure?

I applaud your endurance DA. I'm a bit bored of trying to convince our politburo friend of the values of freedom and prudence.

[AtW]

They are not risky at all because they are supported by something physical.

They risky to the person who gets them you idiot!!! And if lots of people who can't afford the risk get them, then even people who lend them money (banks) get in trouble they did not expect!

My point is also that wherever the cash has come from (and it is most likely that your investor is using other people's money-however you dress it up)

When someone pays you salary or bonus, does it become your own money or it's some kind of debt in your twisted version of economics?

allowing people to put money into an internet business with no revenue streams is wrong. You should not be allowed to fool people in this way, particularly after the lessons of the last dot com crash.

Are you saying that I fooled the investor?

Are you saying that we have no revenue streams?

If so then you'd be wrong on both accounts.

[DodgyAgent]

Mitch


I'm sure someone with a classical education will be able to quote a Greek / Roman etc philosopher who postulated something similar to : "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

.

I am sure someone with any education can say:

Income over 50 years £2,000,000
Expenditure over 50 years £1,999,999,

plus a property and a pension = very happy indeed.

Why do we have to "annualise" income and expenditure?

[vetran]

Mitch

Unfortunately people cannot be trusted to live within their means as is clearly demonstrated by the number of mortgage defaults and such things as cheque cashing firms and pennies for gold.

Note many may have fallen on hard times but a goodly percentage don't work out how much money they have coming in and spend less than that. The number of people that live in anticipation of payday is frightening.

Obviously for the Thatcher haters its a recent (but it really started under the tories) thing and Mr Micawber was mad.

I'm sure someone with a classical education will be able to quote a Greek / Roman etc philosopher who postulated something similar to : "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

The problem is we need a very small percentage of these to break society as looking after people costs 10 - 1000 times more than leaving them to look after themselves.

Compassionate capitalism requires a strong government that regulates corporations to remain moral and socially beneficial whilst encouraging profits. Asking the capable to look after themselves means there will actually be enough money to pay for those that cannot be independent.

New Lie have bent over for more corporations than a Kings cross sex worker. They have also grown state dependency to frightening proportions.

[DodgyAgent]

No, I wasn't.

Mortgage is one of a few acceptable debts in my view, however it's not for everyone - the risks are very significant, more so to those who can least afford such risks in their lifes.

They are not risky at all because they are supported by something physical. Their allocation has been illogical and out of control, but properly administered they are a huge contribution to enabling working people to have ownership of something that conveys responsibility to other human beings.

My point is also that wherever the cash has come from (and it is most likely that your investor is using other people's money-however you dress it up) allowing people to put money into an internet business with no revenue streams is wrong.
You should not be allowed to fool people in this way, particularly after the lessons of the last dot com crash.

[AtW]

Lady Tester and I got a mortgage when we were on a low income because the bank manager (back in the days when bank managers knew their customers) correctly believed, using his professional judgment and knowledge of our circumstances, that it was sensible to lend us money to buy our home.

From what I have read about old times it was about right attitude towards mortgages.

This "everyone can own a house" thing created massive risks that were ultimately exploited with sub prime junk.

[AtW]

I thought you were trying to make a case for banning all mortgages?

No, I wasn't.

Mortgage is one of a few acceptable debts in my view, however it's not for everyone - the risks are very significant, more so to those who can least afford such risks in their lifes.

[Mich the Tester]

If I was on low income I certainly would not get mortgage. And I was on low income (about 0) for nearly 5 years - thankfully I had savings to finance operations, but even with them I considered it was too high risk for me to get mortgage.

Lady Tester and I got a mortgage when we were on a low income because the bank manager (back in the days when bank managers knew their customers) correctly believed, using his professional judgment and knowledge of our circumstances, that it was sensible to lend us money to buy our home. I am very glad that the bank manager had that freedom and that we had that freedom. By the way, the bank that lent us the money is seen as one of the safest banks in the world and is the only major Dutch bank that has not required support from the state.

[DodgyAgent]

No, wrong.

I work on the basis of risk management - anyone without savings is in high risk situation because sudden need to spend few grands would cripple that person/family, get them into loan shark debt etc.

If in this they have stuff like mortgage then missing repayments can also result in house being taken over - it's much easier to move into cheaper rent than deal with that.

If I was on low income I certainly would not get mortgage. And I was on low income (about 0) for nearly 5 years - thankfully I had savings to finance operations, but even with them I considered it was too high risk for me to get mortgage.

I thought you were trying to make a case for banning all mortgages?

[AtW]

You work from the assumption that people can't act sensibly with their finances.

No, wrong.

I work on the basis of risk management - anyone without savings is in high risk situation because sudden need to spend few grands would cripple that person/family, get them into loan shark debt etc.

If in this they have stuff like mortgage then missing repayments can also result in house being taken over - it's much easier to move into cheaper rent than deal with that.

If I was on low income I certainly would not get mortgage. And I was on low income (about 0) for nearly 5 years - thankfully I had savings to finance operations, but even with them I considered it was too high risk for me to get mortgage.

[Mich the Tester]

I was certainly conditioned by the Soviet system, but I broke that conditioning

No you haven't broken the conditioning. You refuse to accept that individuals must be free to take their own decisions on issues that are important to them; that is the central tenet of totalitarian conditioning. The collective is wiser than the individual, therefore the collective may force it's will upon the individual.

[DodgyAgent]

0 or 1. Professional habit.

[Moscow Mule]

The sub prime tulip came from lending money to people who could not afford to pay that moneyt back. Just as the dot com collapse came from investors lending (sorry investing) other people's money to businesses with little or no revenue streams-just like yours.

Whether it is an individual or a business (which in your case is a one man band disguised as a business) they were both bad investments. I would suggest that someone with a regular job, with a £30,000 mortgage on a £100,000 property is a darn site better and more sensible option than pi**ing it into some dreamworld fantasy of a complete nutcase.

Say what you think Dodgy, don't hold back or let the truth get in the way of a good rant...