drbubb

Are you looking at Earned Incomes on an AFTER-TAX BASIS? I would be surprised if they are rising much, and they may be falling

RATES, and the overly-generous Housing benefits, which help to soak up (and disguise!) excess supply.

I am ON THE CASE TOO, Profhit. In fact I own quite a few shares. This is from my Diary recently: The "spinoff idea" is working... Did you get any? TNR has traded at $0.16 since I posted that. TNR is now "on the move" as the spinoff progresses - despite the weak market... TNR-chart TNR: 0.215 Change: +0.035 Open: 0.185 High: 0.215 Low: 0.185 // Volume: 658,547 Percent Change: +19.44% When it is "fully bloomed", I may take back my original capital and invest it in the next one.

I am not at all sure about that. If pre-tax income rises, and then the tax bite rises so fast that post-tax income is unchanged, then the "real people" in the private sector who are in the productive jobs are no better off. In fact, after taking into account inflation, they are worse off. The public sector is the only area showing an increase in "income", and much of that is going towards malinvestment like housing benefits which just pushes up rents and house price, HARMING those who do not own property, and only helping parasitic landlords. The way I see the present system is that it benefits parasites, rather than productive folk.

The burden represented by the Debt only "halves" if Income doubles. If income is unchanged, the burden of inflation of imports makes the debt more burdensome. This should be clear if you think about it, but must people (especially Estate agents) speak rubbish on this subject

How do you "inflate away debts" when incomes are not rising? It worked in the 1980's, but that was when North Sea oil production was ramping up. That windfall was wasted on social programmes, while the whole nation lived beyond its means. And the "solution" is not repeatable.

Yes. And how about this: In this case... Not only did he follow his "inclinations" and roger the young, He rogered the whole nation. Despicable character, whether Icke is right or not.

Big money and political connections help there. I suppose being a renegade member of an Illuminati family would have helped him in that field.

Yes, indeed. That's it exactly - your OVERALL position and strategy matters. A CORE position in physical silver makes much more sense, if you have a safe place to put it. That is not so easy in a small Hong Kong flat./

My Gold buying then was pretty modest, and so was my wealth in those days. Where did JS invest? I was mostly in property then, pyramiding my wealth - to make it grow.

I am flexible enough to move my "Core" (inflation protected) positions around, and they need not remain in precious metals, or even in metal commodities. For instance, I consider owning my own property in HK a "core position." I am now thinking about selling it- after a gain of 50% or so. But I may not do that until I have worked out an alternative place to park a 7-figure inflation-protected investment. Over the years, it moved from: + London property, to + Junior gold stocks, to + HK property, to + Less HK property and HK$ cash Where next? I am seriously thinking about buying property in the US. And if silver gets cheap enough (under $27?), I may give it some thought as a CORE position

You are challenging an "article of faith" perhaps? People do not like to think too much for themselves, and would rather accept someone else's views as "gospel", I suppose. I remember buying gold at around $500 after it came off its $850 peak in 1980, a few years earlier. I thought: it MUST go back to $850 - I can recall all those strong arguments that I was hearing in 1979-80, and they "made so much sense." Well, I got "my clocke cleaned" on that buy, and I learned that I needed to develop my own long term points of view, not just rely on experts. I challenge the Buy&Hold purists here, who are fond of quoting their favorite precious metals gurus. That is because I know those gurus may let them down at the peaks, when it wil really matter. People need to learn to think for themselves and not just accept the price targets of their favorite Gurus.

THAT's WHAT I THOUGHT TOO. I imagined that Buy&Holders might have an average Silver cost of maybe $8-10 per ounce, or a maximum of $12. I was AMAZED when I heard that Bob Chapman had an average cost of $18. That means that if Silver falls back to where the Parabolic move started, then he might even have a LOSS on his entire silver position. What sort of Buy & Hold acquisition policy does that show : A buying panic when prices took off last fall - that's what it seemed to me. I like to buy cheap, and sell dear. I don't chase uptrending markets, because you can always find something cheap, if you dig and research hard enough, which is how I wound up buying things like: the Swiss Franc, GLW.t, and even CRB last year. Not popular trades when I was buying in, but they worked well.

Let's GET REAL. Are you really ready for a cheaper Silver price? From the Beating B&H thread:

Households in the UK may be facing the biggest drop in "income" for 30 years, a leading economic think tank has warned. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said median take-home incomes had actually increased during the recent recession. But the institute's analysis of latest government figures suggested it was "entirely possible" that median incomes dropped by 3% in 2010-11. The policy group said such a fall would leave median income levels back where they were in 2005. 'Pain delayed' According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) the squeeze from the recession on household incomes in the UK is only now being felt. While new data shows average incomes rising faster than inflation in 2008-10, it says in the 2010-11 fiscal year they may have undershot. The IFS also said child poverty had fallen but not by enough to meet the old Labour government's target. Tony Blair's government said it would halve child poverty by 2010, but the IFS said that it would only have fallen by a quarter. IFS research economist Wenchao Jin said: "The figures tell a story of pain delayed, but not pain avoided. "Average living standards rose over the recent recession, likely to be driven by large increases in benefits and tax credit rates. / MORE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13384857 == == == I find it amusing that they call transfer payments "Income" / It should be called "State Charity" or something. It is the OPPOSITE of "earned income."

"Nor did we have the huge oversupply of building" I REALISE that this is a commonly-held belief - But I just don't buy it ! I have a different point of view: + The UK's generous benefits (including housing benefits) have encouraged dependent Europeans and dependents from other countries such as so-called political refugees to migrate to the UK. + Overly-generous housing benefits have encouraged household formations, by those who would otherwise live with friends and family (single mothers come to mind.) THE COMBINATION of these two have pushed up housing demand and created an artificial shortage, boosting rents and boosting house prices. But these excesses are now being addressed, and benefits will be much less generous in the future, and that will REVERSE the trend of growing household formations, and Britain will soon wake-up and discover there is no shortgge of supply, but rather a surplus. That will help to drive house prices down. And the UK will finally get the correction it is due - even in London. == == Press Releases Seven out of Ten Lib Dem Voters Want Net Immigration sharply cut: New poll shows strong support for Cameron’s target 10 May, 2011 A new YouGov poll has found that 72% of potential Liberal Democrat voters want net immigration of 100,000 or less per year. A majority (55%) of Lib Dem supporters wanted to see a much lower figure of 50,000 or less. Only 8% wanted the present level of 200,000 a year or more. Results for Labour voters were almost identical. 74% of potential Labour voters favour net immigration of 100,000 or less a year and a majority (64%) want 50,000 or less; only 7% wanted 200,000 or more. Conservative voters were 92% in favour of 100,000 or less while only 2% wanted 200,000 or more. Taking the public as a whole, 79% favoured 100,000 or less while 5% wanted 200,000 or more. This underlines the strength of support right across the political spectrum for David Cameron’s aim to cut net migration to the “tens of thousands” during the course of the Parliament. The poll also found strong support among potential Liberal Democrat voters for the Government’s measures to limit the number of economic migrants to Britain. 76% supported a limit while 18% opposed it, of those 4% strongly opposed. Labour voters took the same view while 96% of Conservatives supported a limit to economic migration, with only 3% opposing. /more: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

"Nor did we have the huge oversupply of building" I REALISE that this is a commonly-held belief - But I just don't buy it ! I have a different point of view: + The UK's generous benefits (including housing benefits) have encouraged dependent Europeans and dependents from other countries such as so-called political refugees to migrate to the UK. + Overly-generous housing benefits have encouraged household formations, by those who would otherwise live with friends and family (single mothers come to mind.) THE COMBINATION of these two have pushed up housing demand and created an artificial shortage, boosting rents and boosting house prices. But these excesses are now being addressed, and benefits will be much less generous in the future, and that will REVERSE the trend of growing household formations, and Britain will soon wake-up and discover there is no shortgge of supply, but rather a surplus. That will help to drive house prices down. And the UK will finally get the correction it is due - even in London. == == Press Releases Seven out of Ten Lib Dem Voters Want Net Immigration sharply cut: New poll shows strong support for Cameron’s target 10 May, 2011 A new YouGov poll has found that 72% of potential Liberal Democrat voters want net immigration of 100,000 or less per year. A majority (55%) of Lib Dem supporters wanted to see a much lower figure of 50,000 or less. Only 8% wanted the present level of 200,000 a year or more. Results for Labour voters were almost identical. 74% of potential Labour voters favour net immigration of 100,000 or less a year and a majority (64%) want 50,000 or less; only 7% wanted 200,000 or more. Conservative voters were 92% in favour of 100,000 or less while only 2% wanted 200,000 or more. Taking the public as a whole, 79% favoured 100,000 or less while 5% wanted 200,000 or more. This underlines the strength of support right across the political spectrum for David Cameron’s aim to cut net migration to the “tens of thousands” during the course of the Parliament. The poll also found strong support among potential Liberal Democrat voters for the Government’s measures to limit the number of economic migrants to Britain. 76% supported a limit while 18% opposed it, of those 4% strongly opposed. Labour voters took the same view while 96% of Conservatives supported a limit to economic migration, with only 3% opposing. /more: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

It looks bleak, and not even as nice as a good "industrial" building. Where's the greenery ?

(Here's the sort of project that is being marketed in Hong Kong now): Pre-sales Started - The Mill Apartmetns, Mill Lane, West Hampstead, London NW6 A good place to store shoes ?? : http://zxcode.com/2011/05/the-mill-apartments-ballisodare/ Dear Valued Customers --PRE SALES STARTED-- Taylor Wimpey is proud to present this prestigious development at West Hampstead for your kind perusal. - Brand new 1, 2 & 3–bed apartments with either balconies or terraces - Exclusive setting adjacent to a nature reserve - Minutes’ walk to West Hampstead Station (Tube & Rail) directly connecting to King’s Cross Station - High Specification with underfloor heating system and wooden flooring throughout - Secure underground car parking available - 999-year leasehold - Completion estimated in December 2012 - An excellent investment, with prices starting from £383,000

This story demonstrates my contention: The UK has not "bit the bullet" on Housing yet - particularly in the London area. With the US, Ireland, Spain, and practically every other country in the Western world have seen a large correction, why has the London area escaped? ANSWER: Banks never really became disciplined in London, the government kept pumping out housing benefits, and ultra-low rates arrived in the "nick of time" back in late 2008. I think the bullet will get bit, and London will suffer too, and when prices come down, all those debt fueled households that have built their debt up to beyond the high prices they paid back in 2004-2007 are going to be in a world of pain. There is no magic way of boosting incomes in the UK, and UK interest rates cannot stay at ultra-low levels forever. Inflation rates are now well above base rates. This type of negative rate cannot be sustained for long, since it encourages malinvestments and distorts the economy. The debt crisis which is now ravaging Greece and Ireland, will sometime soon show up in the UK. That will push borrowing rates for the UK government up, and I think this will be the pin that finally bursts the UK housing bubble. The sad news is that Go-down Brown is no longer in centre stage to absorb the full share of the blame that he richly deserves.

This story demonstrates my contention: The UK has not "bit the bullet" on Housing yet - particularly in the London area. With the US, Ireland, Spain, and practically every other country in the Western world have seen a large correction, why has the London area escaped? ANSWER: Banks never really became disciplined in London, the government kept pumping out housing benefits, and ultra-low rates arrived in the "nick of time" back in late 2008. I think the bullet will get bit, and London will suffer too, and when prices come down, all those debt fueled households that have built their debt up to beyond the high prices they paid back in 2004-2007 are going to be in a world of pain. There is no magic way of boosting incomes in the UK, and UK interest rates cannot stay at ultra-low levels forever. Inflation rates are now well above base rates. This type of negative rate cannot be sustained for long, since it encourages malinvestments and distorts the economy. The debt crisis which is now ravaging Greece and Ireland, will sometime soon show up in the UK. That will push borrowing rates for the UK government up, and I think this will be the pin that finally bursts the UK housing bubble. The sad news is that Go-down Brown is no longer in centre stage to absorb the full share of the blame that he richly deserves.

It sounds like a big drop. But Hong Kong fell 69 percent from 1997 to 2003 (6 years) - so maybe Dublin's drop is not done yet.

Optimistic Sellers Push Prices to the Limit “The prospects for the housing market are very weak indeed over the next five years,” Ray Barrell, director . . . The number of properties reduced in price increased during the month of April to 77,510, 29% more than in April 2010. Typical time on market has fallen sharply by 26 days to 107 days (median), but remains 12 days more than in May 2010. Supply of new properties to market increased to 134,704 in April, 14% more than in April 2010. (there are not 14% more buyers- that much is clear.) This is a Portend of Disaster - I reckon

Not only that... The TRANSFER PAYMENT BRIGADE (those on benefits) which did very under Labour, are likely to find their incomes squeezed too.

Nice chart ! Looks like a pathway that has worked near perfectly. But today may represent the first major deviation,