If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Renting costs are about to rocket
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I'm not sure where to put this thread, as it could theoretically fit into three different areas. I'll put it here, and let the mods decide if this is the best section. 
I'm going to try and link two different stories here. I've got bad news for students, and anyone else who's on a low-wage and is renting. Due to a new licensing regime for rented properties, the price of renting is likely to increase. Why? It's all down to the new "Houses of Multiple Occupation" licensing scheme, which comes in to force next month. It's a levy on the house owner (i.e. the landlord) on any house that is let to five or more people living on three floors or more. :: Details :: (The Daily Telegraph)
And as this is to do with students, it reminds me of another story I saw on Thursday, but chose not to thread. (I wish I had now!) According to a poll of 2,200 students by Sodexho, (a catering firm) a fifth of students are now shunning the traditional university lifestyle of living in halls of residence and shared housing. And out of those, 80% of these are paying no rent, are five times as likely to have part-time paid employment, and two thirds of say they never join in with campus social activities. :: Details :: (BBC News)
Great. Rents are going up, and as always, the poorest in society will suffer. It's no wonder students are choosing to live at home. Hardly anyone can afford to buy a house with prices as they are today, and the cost of renting is about to shoot up. What are people supposed to do - live on the streets? And all from a Labour government led by dimwits that are more interested in hedge funds, offshore accounts and watches from Silvio Berlusconi than social justice and fairness. It makes me so angry to see principles being sold down the river yet again. :mad:
***rant over!***
I'm going to try and link two different stories here. I've got bad news for students, and anyone else who's on a low-wage and is renting. Due to a new licensing regime for rented properties, the price of renting is likely to increase. Why? It's all down to the new "Houses of Multiple Occupation" licensing scheme, which comes in to force next month. It's a levy on the house owner (i.e. the landlord) on any house that is let to five or more people living on three floors or more. :: Details :: (The Daily Telegraph)
And as this is to do with students, it reminds me of another story I saw on Thursday, but chose not to thread. (I wish I had now!) According to a poll of 2,200 students by Sodexho, (a catering firm) a fifth of students are now shunning the traditional university lifestyle of living in halls of residence and shared housing. And out of those, 80% of these are paying no rent, are five times as likely to have part-time paid employment, and two thirds of say they never join in with campus social activities. :: Details :: (BBC News)
Great. Rents are going up, and as always, the poorest in society will suffer. It's no wonder students are choosing to live at home. Hardly anyone can afford to buy a house with prices as they are today, and the cost of renting is about to shoot up. What are people supposed to do - live on the streets? And all from a Labour government led by dimwits that are more interested in hedge funds, offshore accounts and watches from Silvio Berlusconi than social justice and fairness. It makes me so angry to see principles being sold down the river yet again. :mad:
***rant over!***
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
And rentals in desirable students areas rise astronomically every year anyway. Students are stupid, and will only live where other students do, hence why crappy areas like Heaton in Newcastle have such comedic rental prices.
I already chuck enough money into the black hole.
yeh we live near the university, strangely its the students at home who dont get involves in university activities
Bugger.
Yeah. That'll happen. :rolleyes:
Fair enough.
It's why all your analysis makes me giggle. It relies on people suddenly not acting totally selfishly. Everyone does, at all times and rightly so.
and then all the students will rent all the houses from the cheap landlords, leaving the shitty ones out of pocket
My life, quite frankly, is fucking amazing. I am grateful beyond belief to be having it. Good luck to you on your existence of misery and ignorance.
Yup, once again the free market provides what the state cannot.
Chicken and egg though innit. Our current economic system rewards the greedy, selfish and shitty aspects of human nature. So how do we change it? Fucked if I know.
Yeah, ok. Complicated things are just simple things stacked together. What's wrong with that?
And ALWAYS in a way to benfit themselves. They may have faulty models leading to behaviour that doesn't really benefit them in reality, but it's primary intention is always selfish.
Ok, thanks I guess. I think I am right because of the overwhelming evidence. Theres not much emotional attachment to it tbh.
Never heard of them sorry.
However, you would claim that they weren't imposed by a central coercive authority - i.e. not a monarchy, state ot whathaveyou and was something like anarchism.
Therefore it must have been a free market.
I don't claim to anything about the spanish revolution beyond what you have told me. If you have misinformed me then well......... :yeees:
I do however know what a free market is. It's one free from regulation, where people can make their own decisions and free from co-ercion, that is it's stateless, governmentless.
If the people in those systems voluntarily chose to be there, then it was a form of free market. If they were made to be there, then it wasn't anarchism at all, but a form of statism.
If you mean something else by "free market" than I do, then fair enough. You are mistaken. Like many left wing "thinkers" you probably equate the free market with things like corporations, which of course can only exist in a statist/collectivist system.
No doubt your dreams are filled with moustachioed capitalists planning yet another way to rob the poor deserving workers. Except of course that these people use state power and corporate fiction to cloak what they do and escape legal censure aren't capitalists at all, they are collectivists and statists.
You're quite clearly insane.
Hmm good answer. :rolleyes:
>sigh< another one.
And you are quite clearly not that bright.
Despite admitting that you know nothing about the Spanish Revolution and that you have never heard of the CNT or FAI, you still feel qualified to comment on what their politics and economics were! Amazing! You're mad as a hatter you know that?
If what you told me was correct, that means that there was no centralised force and therefore any market would have been a free market.
If it wasn't the case, then it was just another form of state and not actually what you claimed it to be at all.
You don't need to know much if your brain works. Your brain obviously doesn't, hich is why youhave turned it into a jukebox of other peoples' opinions, most of which conflict but you are too witless to see.
The thing you seem unable to get your head around when it comes to this stuff is that liberatarian ideals can and do exist on the left - in fact its where they historically originate. The "free market" can never promote true freedom as it is predicated on an economic system where profit is the motive and resources are privately owned. This would promote negative freedoms (i.e. freedom from) but could never promote positive freedoms (freedom to) because the social relationships of worker and boss would still exist. Anarchism (or to give it its other name, libertarian communism) recognises that capitalism is essentially about the social relations of power between those who own the resources and those who are forced to sell their labour. This is something you seem to have tremendous difficulty getting your head round. The fact that I am opposed to state coercion but am also opposed to economic coercion that is imposed by the social relationships inherent in markets, profits and private property. No doubt you will tell me that "people just don't function that way", but examples like the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Commune, the Zapatistas etc show that they can. Educate yourself klintock - you might learn something.
You are wrong on this klintock, way way waaaay wrong. At least have the good grace to admit it.
If it was chosen voluntarily by people then it was provided by the free market. Because that's all "free market" means. There is a clue n the words "free" and the words "market". Capitalism is just the way the world always works, it's a basic fact of existence.
One of your problems is that you equate "capital" with money and "money" with fiat currency. Your utter ignorance of basic economics is laughable.
So the free market provided them with what they wanted in that form. (Leaving aside problem with the non existence of community and the basic fact of existence that there can only be individuals, because there is only ever individuals, but lets join you in lal la land on that point for now).
What has free market capitalism got to do with the accumulation of profit?
Leaving that aside for a moment, as well as the issue I would obviously have with the phrase "not for private profit" which I know to be impossible, why did people do this if they did not gain something?
If you are going to say that people did it for a sense of fellowship with their fellow man or some other utter rot, then that was their profit. Again, your ignorance of basic economics and human motivation shines through. Capital = money and money = fiat currency for you. I'd probably agree with a lot of your analysis if I had made that mistake.
We want to go to the same place, but we have a different map on how to get there, I agree. Things don't always stay where they originate.
I agree, except I have a vastly different definition of what profit, capital and money are. In your view, money is the fiat currency nonsense that can only be imposed by a state. If people are free to change the currency they use any time they like, the issue of power inevitably resting in he hands or a few rarely if ever comes up. If one man gets all the gold, it's worthless to him, because things only have value at the moment of trade. If he's not trading with his gold, it's worthless, unless he has bribed many others to use guns on his behalf.
People just swap to silver, or whatnot.
Why do you think people should have freedom to, over and above the freedom to come up woth new ways to provide goods and services to their fellow man?
Ever think that if you are too witless to think up new ways of doing things you don't deserve freedoms to do anything, living as you do on the coattails of better men?
Refusing to trade with you is not coercion. State coercion is active coercion, free market refusals to deal with you for whatever reason are not coercive in nature but indifferent.
#
Such a situation can only occur where there is ogrganised coercion - i.e. a monarchy or state or other type of government. As a free market presupposes no government it has nothing to do with what you label "capitalism". you are refering to the mixed economy or socialist/collectivist rubbish currently in vogue. It's about as free market as a slave pit.
You really, really need to identify what money really is.
Goodbye.
That's exactly my point about you. You have no idea what money is, never shown the slightest clue as to what it is, and then you wank on about economics like you have a clue. You bang on about capital but you have no clue what it is or can be.
You also think that words have some seperate meaning from a discussion with a person. People hold meaning for words, words don't hold meaning.
Ah whatever, goodbye. :wave:
As for your assertion that people deciding how to run their own lives is an example of a "market"...well, all I can say is learn how to use this
like I said, if you don't understand what money is, you can't have any sort of economic ideas. As you obviously don't know what money is all your ideas are obviously wrong. this is because having got money wrong, you get capital wrong, having got capital wrong, you get everything else wrong.
It's not fiat currency that I have sole issue with in your economic analysis, it's that you show no knowledge of what money is in either a free market or a state run hodgepodge.
We've done this before. Things do not have any intrinsic value, there is no objective measure of value possible. They only have a value upon trade. And they only have a value in another substance.
This is because value is a function of the process of trade.
Like I said, a complete and utter lack of understanding of basic principles of economics. Not surprising because few left wingers do.
Looks to me like you are refering to a collectivist system again. Or any of the current state capitalist systems in place in the western world. These have nothing to do with a free market. As you well know.
Why? My or your definition of a free market is just as valid as anyone elses. Anfd you are discussing matters with me. Why not think like the anarchist you claim to be and stop running to authority all the time?