Is the global economy on the verge of the biggest collapse ever?

Junkyard Tom

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Wealthy people just have to all work in their economic interests individually to game the system. They don't need to meet up.

I find the oft cited Father of Capitalism's ignored quotes quite intriguing.

All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons.

Adam Smith.

Iwasfrozen

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Be quiet. Money ain't got no owners, only spenders.

If that's genuinely your philosophy I wish you the best of luck with it.

Allyall

It was supposed to happen in October..

http://www.theforecaster-movie.com/en/the-story/

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes and it's amazing how they are able to keep this all so quiet. It's a good thing they all have that collective mind or the information may be leaked out to the media who also all peddle the exact same ideology as all rich people.

To debate you need to learn to read and understand what you are reading. I can't make it simpler so I can just repeat what I said: rich people don't have to meet in a room to act as a group they just all have to work on their individual self interest. Nor did I say anything about the media but it is interesting that you acknowledge that the media peddles the exact "same ideology as rich people". I agree. I have a theory on why that is I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Um, this thread is not about relative wealth, it's about the OP fearing another crash based on a dubious index.

Everything in your post was off topic but I said that first. Nevertheless here is where we are.
The index isn't that dubious btw, and if we did get back on topic we could discuss it.

Capitalism may not be perfectly socially mobile but the world will never be perfectly socially mobile. On the other hand the free market system has given us the most socially mobile society to have ever existed post agriculture and is working to improve mobility in countries like India, China and Bangladesh today.

No doubt it's better than feudalism but the major social mobility is behind us, given the reality of increasing wealth in the top 1%. and - to vaguely attempt to get back on topic - increasing boom and bust cycles concentrating even more wealth there. That will continue without redistribution measures.

I didn't say that. I said you can't stop the boom bust cycle. It's a fact of the modern financial environment.

The modern financial environment needs replacing then. And of course we can try to reduce booms and busts. The economic system is what we do, what we agree on, not something put there by God.

Hold up, I'll tell the Managing Director of the company I work for who has a house in London that Eugene on boards.ie says he doesn't actually have a house or if he does he must have inherited it.

Again. Learn to read. I said most workers, not all could work hard and expect to remain in the rental sector, thus demolishing your arguments about how hard work or diligence makes people rich.

And if your counter argument to housing being unaffordable to most workers in London - including Doctors - is that a managing director can scrape together enough schekels to buy a 2 up 2 down in Watford, well that's not really making your best point.

Junkyard Tom

Hard work and diligence is much more likely to make the 1% rich than the hard worker.

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

To debate you need to learn to read and understand what you are reading. I can't make it simpler so I can just repeat what I said: rich people don't have to meet in a room to act as a group they just all have to work on their individual self interest. Nor did I say anything about the media but it is interesting that you acknowledge that the media peddles the exact "same ideology as rich people". I agree. I have a theory on why that is I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

I've read what you said and my response was a response to it so I'll just repeat my response. "Yes and it's amazing how they are able to keep this all so quiet."

Oh I know you do. Lefties always complain about percieved bias in the media. Funny how the extreme fringes of both wings tend to see the mainstream media as extremist

No doubt it's better than feudalism but the major social mobility is behind us, given the reality of increasing wealth in the top 1%. and - to vaguely attempt to get back on topic - increasing boom and bust cycles concentrating even more wealth there. That will continue without redistribution measures.

Inequality in itself is not a bad thing. Social mobility is the metric to look out for and I haven't seen anything to suggest social mobility is decreasing.

Also, thinking in terms of percentage is a bad metric. Surely if given the choice an increase in the average person's real income is preferable if achieved at the expense a smaller amount of the total percentage of income?

The modern financial environment needs replacing then. And of course we can try to reduce booms and busts. The economic system is what we do, what we agree on, not something put there by God.

Replacing, or even changing the financial system is not within Ireland's power even if it did need reform.

Again. Learn to read. I said most workers, not all could work hard and expect to remain in the rental sector, thus demolishing your arguments about how hard work or diligence makes people rich.

And if your counter argument to housing being unaffordable to most workers in London - including Doctors - is that a managing director can scrape together enough schekels to buy a 2 up 2 down in Watford, well that's not really making your best point.

Please learn to read, if he can be a managing director anyone can. He's a chartered accountant and he isn't from a wealthy background.

Maximus Alexander

After Hours is a real barrel of laughs these days.

donvito99

The article linked is jibberish posing as poorly worded English.

desertcircus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Please learn to read, if he can be a managing director anyone can. He's a chartered accountant and he isn't from a wealthy background.

I just want to check something on this: are you arguing that housing isn't ruinously expensive in London for the vast majority of workers because it's at least theoretically possible for an individual employee to work hard, win successive promotions, demonstrate competence at every level, and get all the little breaks to go their way, and end up becoming MD of the company they work for?

Because that's not a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London have become impossibly expensive for the majority of wage earners. It's not even a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London are impossibly expensive for 30-year-old Sarah, who's already been promoted twice and is now earning 42k sterling a year (twice the median income for the UK) but can't afford to buy a property anywhere near her job and would need another two promotions up the ladder to have a chance. At the moment, she's in the top 20% of earners in the UK, but her chances of buying a decent place to live in London are effectively zero.

Iwasfrozen

desertcircus wrote: »

I just want to check something on this: are you arguing that housing isn't ruinously expensive in London for the vast majority of workers because it's at least theoretically possible for an individual employee to work hard, win successive promotions, demonstrate competence at every level, and get all the little breaks to go their way, and end up becoming MD of the company they work for?

Because that's not a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London have become impossibly expensive for the majority of wage earners. It's not even a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London are impossibly expensive for 30-year-old Sarah, who's already been promoted twice and is now earning 42k sterling a year (twice the median income for the UK) but can't afford to buy a property anywhere near her job and would need another two promotions up the ladder to have a chance. At the moment, she's in the top 20% of earners in the UK, but her chances of buying a decent place to live in London are effectively zero.

I'm not arguing homes in London aren't expensive. I'm pointing out to the other poster it is possible a person can buy a house there if they work hard to advance their career far enough.

In isolation expensive homes aren't a problem, people can live in house shares, flats, or commute.

KomradeBishop

Essentially, what you are doing is arguing against macro-scale/collective/top-down arguments - about the economy overall, or Londons economy overall, and the average persons ability to afford a living or house - and are using micro-scale/individual/bottom-up arguments against them.

They are incompatible - you can't solve macro-scale persistently high unemployment, or provide macro-scale affordability in the housing market, through micro-scale/individual efforts that are supposed to act from the bottom-up - but that's the great myth that gets peddled by free-market ideologists, as a red herring, as it's extremely useful for 'blaming the victim' i.e. individuals (e.g. for 'not working hard enough'), while distracting from the need for top-down macro-scale solutions (like getting more money flowing through the actual real economy, rather than just through finance markets - the latter of which leads to speculation like on house prices).


You are pointless to debate with, as you never cease from the same script, even after the points have been thoroughly debunked - and you even redefine words to suit your argument, when it goes completely against the dictionary definition - e.g. a 'conspiracy' is defined as a group of people reaching an agreement with one another, conspiring to a certain action - and you define multiple people working in their own self-interest, towards a certain action, without any agreement, as a 'conspiracy' - it is not.

This is the modus operandi of at least half a dozen or more free-market posters on Boards - to give the pretence of a debate, while engaging in what seems more like obstruction of debate.

desertcircus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not arguing homes in London aren't expensive. I'm pointing out to the other poster it is possible a person can buy a house there if they work hard to advance their career far enough.

But that's utterly unrelated to the original point being made - that house prices in London are unaffordable for all but the wealthiest. "It's theoretically possible to do very well financially" is not a riposte to "houses in London are out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population".

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Essentially, what you are doing is arguing against macro-scale/collective/top-down arguments - about the economy overall, or Londons economy overall, and the average persons ability to afford a living or house - and are using micro-scale/individual/bottom-up arguments against them.

They are incompatible - you can't solve macro-scale persistently high unemployment, or provide macro-scale affordability in the housing market, through micro-scale/individual efforts that are supposed to act from the bottom-up - but that's the great myth that gets peddled by free-market ideologists, as a red herring, as it's extremely useful for 'blaming the victim' i.e. individuals (e.g. for 'not working hard enough'), while distracting from the need for top-down macro-scale solutions (like getting more money flowing through the actual real economy, rather than just through finance markets - the latter of which leads to speculation like on house prices).


You are pointless to debate with, as you never cease from the same script, even after the points have been thoroughly debunked - and you even redefine words to suit your argument, when it goes completely against the dictionary definition - e.g. a 'conspiracy' is defined as a group of people reaching an agreement with one another, conspiring to a certain action - and you define multiple people working in their own self-interest, towards a certain action, without any agreement, as a 'conspiracy' - it is not.

This is the modus operandi of at least half a dozen or more free-market posters on Boards - to give the pretence of a debate, while engaging in what seems more like obstruction of debate.

And you fail to take into consideration personal responsibility. For the employed person high unemployment is not a major problem bar expenditure in social welfare but high unemployment tends to apply downward pressure on that. High unemployment is a problem for the unemployed, both on a personal level and as a group and it's up to them to get retrained / reeducated in a more "in demand" market or travel elsewhere where there are new opportunities available.

Iwasfrozen

desertcircus wrote: »

But that's utterly unrelated to the original point being made - that house prices in London are unaffordable for all but the wealthiest. "It's theoretically possible to do very well financially" is not a riposte to "houses in London are out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population".

OK. I accept property is very expensive in London but I don't see that as a problem in itself. Remove height restrictions and allow development on protected land and supply / demand will push prices down.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

OK. I accept property is very expensive in London but I don't see that as a problem in itself. Remove height restrictions and allow development on protected land and supply / demand will push prices down.

That's quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen to address the problem of housing prices in London, bar none.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

That's quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen to address the problem of housing prices in London, bar none.

Really? If that is the most stupid idea you've heard you must never have heard of rent controls.

Wibbs

karma_ wrote: »

That's quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen to address the problem of housing prices in London, bar none.

That's the Libertarian mind at work. IMH they're best described as value autistics. The price of everything… etc. They would literally pave paradise and put up a parking lot if their nose was in the trough of course and that they could buy their own private paradise enclave away from everyone else.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Really? If that is the most stupid idea you've heard you must never have heard of rent controls.

See what I mean? Completely missing the point.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

That's the Libertarian mind at work. IMH they're best described as value autistics. The price of everything… etc. They would literally pave paradise and put up a parking lot if their nose was in the trough of course and that they could buy their own private paradise enclave away from everyone else.

Leaving aside your dig at people with autism (?!) What would you do to fix housing in London since we're on the topic? It's easy to criticize.

Wibbs

In London? Build more local authority affordable housing(contrary to Libertarian thinking the private sector simply hasn't taken up the slack for decades. For good market reasons, more cheaper housing hits the bottom line and deflates the prices of existing housing). Tackle the government encouraged runaway price inflation of housing. Take measures to end the home owning meme.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

In London? Build more local authority affordable housing(contrary to Libertarian thinking the private sector simply hasn't taken up the slack for decades. For good market reasons, more cheaper housing hits the bottom line and deflates the prices of existing housing). Tackle the government encouraged runaway price inflation of housing. Take measures to end the home owning meme.

And the inevitable social problems which ensue from highly concentrated social housing? The tragedy of the commons situation which occurs when people don't own their own homes?

Far better to remove height restrictions and allow the private sector to build up to improve availability. People will take care of their own property more than the council's.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And the inevitable social problems which ensue from highly concentrated social housing? The tragedy of the commons situation which occurs when people don't own their own homes?

Far better to remove height restrictions and allow the private sector to build up to improve availability. People will take care of their own property more than the council's.

You're literally just repeating yourself (in soundbyte format no less) like the proverbial parrot, which is ironic considering that parrots are the single greatest students of economics the world has ever seen.

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And the inevitable social problems which ensue from highly concentrated social housing? The tragedy of the commons situation which occurs when people don't own their own homes?

Far better to remove height restrictions and allow the private sector to build up to improve availability. People will take care of their own property more than the council's.

The private sector will never build enough housing. In the 60's the private sector built 200k a year in the UK and council housing builds were running at 200k. House owners were 50% of all households. Now the total build is 200k which is not unsurprisingly half what is needed. Before thatcher even the Tories used to promise state, council or housing association/co-op backed house building.

After thatchers sell off if council housing the number of owner occupiers rose to 70-80% but it was a one off. It's now 60% or so and falling every year.

Wibbs

You missed my point that the vaunted private sector hasn't built at the levels required in decades. And won't, for good "free market" reasons. Secondly the social problems are a red herring. Yes there were mistakes made, but there were also successes, Milton Keynes an example. Learn from the past and we can avoid much of the issues that may come along.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And you fail to take into consideration personal responsibility. For the employed person high unemployment is not a major problem bar expenditure in social welfare but high unemployment tends to apply downward pressure on that. High unemployment is a problem for the unemployed, both on a personal level and as a group and it's up to them to get retrained / reeducated in a more "in demand" market or travel elsewhere where there are new opportunities available.

This isn't even a reply to my post, so I don't know why you bothered quoting me here - this is just a random statement about the unemployed - it's just generic free-market bollock-speak.

You're just proving my point really, by implying that persistently high unemployment is not a problem to society overall, and therefore no macro-scale solutions should be sought (like getting more money flowing through the real economy), only micro-scale 'solutions' - that pretend it's all the fault of the unemployed, and are a red-herring that distract from the real macro-scale problems.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

You're literally just repeating yourself (in soundbyte format no less) like the proverbial parrot, which is ironic considering that parrots are the single greatest students of economics the world has ever seen.

Really? They must be very clever animals so. Would you say they were almost as clever as the pigs in animal farm?

No the pigs manipulated the most vulnerable animals for their own benefit. They were far more clever.

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not arguing homes in London aren't expensive. I'm pointing out to the other poster it is possible a person can buy a house there if they work hard to advance their career far enough.

Your original claim was that hard work and diligence would make people rich. I countered that hard work and diligence wouldn't even make them what used to be middle class, ie house owners. A managing director isn't an answer to that.

In isolation expensive homes aren't a problem, people can live in house shares, flats, or commute.

Really? So as people head towards 30+ or 40 and hope to have families they can expect only to house share, a flat or a huge commute? unless they become managing directors?

.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Really? They must be very clever animals so. Would you say they were almost as clever as the pigs in animal farm?

No the pigs manipulated the most vulnerable animals for their own benefit. They were far more clever.

Smart enough not rebut a reference to a Carlyle quote with a nod to an allegorical tale about the dangers of authoritarianism.

qm1bv4p8i92aoj

Jesus H. Christ. What had started off as an interesting thread has become a very frustrating read thanks to one poster who sounds like he flunked year one economics.

Lads as the saying goes ''if you fight with a pig both of ye will get dirty and one of ye will enjoy it''.

NIMAN

BAck on topic?

Eugene Norman

The BDI is interesting. It isn't just an obscure economic indicator but something that is happening right now.

Whether it's because of an oversupply of boats or a huge drop in demand or both I don't know. I suspect both.

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The private sector will never build enough housing. In the 60's the private sector built 200k a year in the UK and council housing builds were running at 200k. House owners were 50% of all households. Now the total build is 200k which is not unsurprisingly half what is needed. Before thatcher even the Tories used to promise state, council or housing association/co-op backed house building.

After thatchers sell off if council housing the number of owner occupiers rose to 70-80% but it was a one off. It's now 60% or so and falling every year.

Define "enough housing"? presumably you mean "enough to drive down prices" but enough to drive down prices to what level?

I do agree we should aim at maximizing home ownership levels though.

Wibbs wrote: »

You missed my point that the vaunted private sector hasn't built at the levels required in decades. And won't, for good "free market" reasons. Secondly the social problems are a red herring. Yes there were mistakes made, but there were also successes, Milton Keynes an example. Learn from the past and we can avoid much of the issues that may come along.

You post assumes the private sector to be one monolithic entity which will not build cheap housing for a fear of deflating the price of existing housing, the private sector is not a single organization, company A doesn't care a jot if they push down the price of Company B's existing assets and if a smaller company C can specialize in providing cheap housing by under cutting both A and B that will happen.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This isn't even a reply to my post, so I don't know why you bothered quoting me here - this is just a random statement about the unemployed - it's just generic free-market bollock-speak.

You're just proving my point really, by implying that persistently high unemployment is not a problem to society overall, and therefore no macro-scale solutions should be sought (like getting more money flowing through the real economy), only micro-scale 'solutions' - that pretend it's all the fault of the unemployed, and are a red-herring that distract from the real macro-scale problems.

But unemployment isn't a problem for society as a whole, yes there are some issues such as increased crime but these are relatively minor, the majority of the negative effects of unemployment come at an individual level and are to be dealt with at an individual level.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Your original claim was that hard work and diligence would make people rich. I countered that hard work and diligence wouldn't even make them what used to be middle class, ie house owners. A managing director isn't an answer to that.



Really? So as people head towards 30+ or 40 and hope to have families they can expect only to house share, a flat or a huge commute? unless they become managing directors?

.

Where did I say hard work and diligence alone makes people rich? It doesn't necessarily. As for owning a house in London, that's obviously going to be out of the hands of the average middle class person in Inner City London but that issue in isolation is not a major problem. There are other alternatives available such as house share, flats or to commute from the suburbs.

Well if they want to live in London, yes. I'm not sure what exactly you want here. High population density means the only way to build is up, if government regulations stop companies building up then the only alternative is house share or commute.

hatrickpatrick

Sheeps wrote: »

Its happening tomorrow. Tomorrow is the day the world economy will cease to exist. All the wealth will disappear. Gone forever.

And the climate is due to fall apart The Day After Tomorrow.

Quite a week we're in for!

hatrickpatrick

Regarding social housing, can anyone explain the large drop in quality over the decades? Anything built pre-1950 is still standing today and in very good condition. Anything built after 1950 and even more so after 1960 is on the ECHR's list of estates where the government is violating human rights due to damp, sewage leaks, etc.

A particularly good example of this relates to adjacent council estates in Dublin 8. Oliver Bond House was built in the 1930s. Bridgefoot St flats were built in the 1960s - directly opposite the Oliver Bond complex. The Bridgefoot St flats were demolished in the early 2000s as part of a regeneration scheme because they were falling apart, while the Oliver Bond complex is still going strong without such beyond-repair maintenance issues and is actually aesthetically quite a nice building.

I believe that Poplar Row in Ballybough had a similar scenario - two council flat blocks across the road from eachother, one pre-1950 and one from the '70s. The one built in the 70s was demolished during the 2000s because of beyond repair conditions, while the older block on Poplar Row is still there and is never mentioned with regard to the need for a regeneration scheme.

Here's a Google Maps image which shows the distinction in the first case - Bonham Street separates the derelict Bridgefoot St complex on one side and Oliver Bond on the other. Rotate the view and you can see the Oliver Bond complex behind you, while the old Bridgefoot St complex is now a fenced off empty field.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Bonham+St,+Dublin/@53.3450321,-6.2809093,3a,75y,288.38h,83.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTFkoEf-XduLeMlmhlF07TQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DTFkoEf-XduLeMlmhlF07TQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.14203%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670c300efa7b5d:0x2721d8e2bb776535

Same thing for Poplar Row. Camera is facing the empty site where the modern block had to be knocked, behind you is the older 1930s complex which looks in very good condition indeed:

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Poplar+Row,+Dublin/@53.3612865,-6.2414529,3a,75y,180.77h,82.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0wt77P18_NuIt1TdoACm0g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0wt77P18_NuIt1TdoACm0g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D46.909554%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e5e5b75f58d:0x79e98c73e5b2e7df

What's the story with this? Why the apparent decline in building quality such that more modern flat complexes have to be demolished and rebuilt, while much older ones are perfectly fine?

In terms of the economy this is quite ridiculous. Instead of spending money building new housing and increasing the total housing stock, we're instead having to knock down large complexes which in their heyday housed anything up to 350 apartments, and then either leave them derelict or sell them to private developers who only provide a fraction of the low cost housing the council originally had on the site.

What happened? You'd think that with improvements in technology, automation and materials, modern buildings would be in better shape than ancient ones!

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regarding social housing, can anyone explain the large drop in quality over the decades? Anything built pre-1950 is still standing today and in very good condition. Anything built after 1950 and even more so after 1960 is on the ECHR's list of estates where the government is violating human rights due to damp, sewage leaks, etc.

A particularly good example of this relates to adjacent council estates in Dublin 8. Oliver Bond House was built in the 1930s. Bridgefoot St flats were built in the 1960s - directly opposite the Oliver Bond complex. The Bridgefoot St flats were demolished in the early 2000s as part of a regeneration scheme because they were falling apart, while the Oliver Bond complex is still going strong without such beyond-repair maintenance issues and is actually aesthetically quite a nice building.

I believe that Poplar Row in Ballybough had a similar scenario - two council flat blocks across the road from eachother, one pre-1950 and one from the '70s. The one built in the 70s was demolished during the 2000s because of beyond repair conditions, while the older block on Poplar Row is still there and is never mentioned with regard to the need for a regeneration scheme.

Here's a Google Maps image which shows the distinction in the first case - Bonham Street separates the derelict Bridgefoot St complex on one side and Oliver Bond on the other. Rotate the view and you can see the Oliver Bond complex behind you, while the old Bridgefoot St complex is now a fenced off empty field.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Bonham+St,+Dublin/@53.3450321,-6.2809093,3a,75y,288.38h,83.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTFkoEf-XduLeMlmhlF07TQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DTFkoEf-XduLeMlmhlF07TQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.14203%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670c300efa7b5d:0x2721d8e2bb776535

Same thing for Poplar Row. Camera is facing the empty site where the modern block had to be knocked, behind you is the older 1930s complex which looks in very good condition indeed:

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Poplar+Row,+Dublin/@53.3612865,-6.2414529,3a,75y,180.77h,82.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0wt77P18_NuIt1TdoACm0g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0wt77P18_NuIt1TdoACm0g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D46.909554%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670e5e5b75f58d:0x79e98c73e5b2e7df

What's the story with this? Why the apparent decline in building quality such that more modern flat complexes have to be demolished and rebuilt, while much older ones are perfectly fine?

In terms of the economy this is quite ridiculous. Instead of spending money building new housing and increasing the total housing stock, we're instead having to knock down large complexes which in their heyday housed anything up to 350 apartments, and then either leave them derelict or sell them to private developers who only provide a fraction of the low cost housing the council originally had on the site.

What happened? You'd think that with improvements in technology, automation and materials, modern buildings would be in better shape than ancient ones!

Houses built during the boom where build using pyrite which has been proven to be poor construction material. Those built in previous decades while ugly and cramped at least had a strong foundation. Also the number of houses that could do with improvements are clear to see everywhere. It seems people have multiple versions of ideal homes. For some it is the caravan while for others it is the mansion. Not everybody lives in a purpose built concrete house.

Rented Mule

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

If the Baltic Dry Index is anything to go by then things are looking very bleak. It stands at 394 today and it is consistently falling every single day. It stood at 11000 just before the 2008 crash. The more I look into things the more ominous the picture becomes...



http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/transatlantic-shipping-stops/

I'm not going to read through ten pages.....


Isn't there a hurricane in the Atlantic at the moment?

Corpus Twisty

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Houses built during the boom where build using pyrite which has been proven to be poor construction material. Those built in previous decades while ugly and cramped at least had a strong foundation. Also the number of houses that could do with improvements are clear to see everywhere. It seems people have multiple versions of ideal homes. For some it is the caravan while for others it is the mansion. Not everybody lives in a purpose built concrete house.

I think you'll find the pyrite was included by accident, rather than as a material of choice. It was present in a few quarries mining fill that didn't know it was present. They sought Clause 804..they got Clause 804 with pyrite in it...not intended, but still disastrous. Still going strong in business tho....someone elses problem...

Vandango

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for another mass?

Well it's certainly better than another bailout for the bankers.

hatrickpatrick

Vandango wrote: »

Well it's certainly better than another bailout for the bankers.

That's the great thing about Catholicism. It's so vague, and nobody really knows what it's all about...

Baggy Trousers

So what is the answer to the OP's question? Yes or No?

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Houses built during the boom where build using pyrite which has been proven to be poor construction material. Those built in previous decades while ugly and cramped at least had a strong foundation. Also the number of houses that could do with improvements are clear to see everywhere. It seems people have multiple versions of ideal homes. For some it is the caravan while for others it is the mansion. Not everybody lives in a purpose built concrete house.

I'm sure this is true, but the contrast I'm drawing goes back much further than that. I'm contrasting blocks of council flats built in and around the 1930s with those built in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Looking at the exterior of Oliver Bond for example, you can see that a lot of thought went into the design, colour scheme, architecture, etc. That complex is still in very good condition today and has never been earmarked for demolition and redevelopment.

Exterior: https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Oliver+Bond+House,+Oliver+Bond+St,+Dublin+8/@53.3445719,-6.2809992,3a,75y,103.43h,87.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJGmq4CG86SF0SmgnKmXJJA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJGmq4CG86SF0SmgnKmXJJA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D62.735916%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670c257c3ba397:0x2d7decc930678591

Interior glimpse: https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.344339,-6.2810349,3a,15y,100.19h,90.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxKiPAiRJWMpujgzkbQwE4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Now take these from the same area of Dublin, which were built in the 1960s. Both complexes are now in a terrible condition and are in the process of being demolished and rebuilt. You can see that the style was copied somewhat - as with the Oliver Bond complex, they involve long, communal balconies and an internal, open stairwell with arch-like open windows - but not nearly as much thought went into the aesthetics (and clearly the actual internal systems such as plumbing etc, hence the demolitions) - comparing the two, these ones look a lot more "mass produced", with less design and more chunky "let's just get a sh!tload of these things built as quickly as possible" feel to them.

Dolphin House: https://www.google.ie/maps/search/Dolphin+House/@53.3338394,-6.2950492,3a,75y,222.66h,85.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFVnVA0s9zTbfGc-GpweaYA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFVnVA0s9zTbfGc-GpweaYA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D268.56219%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656

Teresa's Gardens: https://www.google.ie/maps/place/St+Teresa's+Gardens,+Donore+Ave,+Dublin+8/@53.3349522,-6.2855084,3a,75y,275.63h,82.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8cj6BJlw03CojrXekff9tg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8cj6BJlw03CojrXekff9tg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.091217%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670c3db8465819:0x39fa4dbfcc5b0ff!6m1!1e1

And if we go a little further forward in time, to the 1970s, these red bricked ones start to appear, with a very distinctive triangular roof. This particular design is common all over the city - this example geographically between the two I've listed above, on Basin St near the Guinness Storehouse:

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Flat+92,+Basin+Street+Flats,+Basin+View,+Dublin+8/@53.3414661,-6.2902576,3a,75y,269.01h,89.61t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svGaPUb_2eRDMMlbuUGqENg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DvGaPUb_2eRDMMlbuUGqENg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D256.38931%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670c39a85555eb:0x8aade839f953843e!6m1!1e1

Those ones have also been partially de-tenented in preparation for demolition, because again according to interviews etc, the conditions inside with regard to plumbing and damp have become impossible to live in.

My point is, bizarrely, the ones built in the first half of the 20th century look extremely well built, and never appear in documentaries about poor maintenance, shoddy workmanship, ill-conceived design, etc. Whereas council flats built in the second half of the 20th century, while being aesthetically similar, are distinguished by (a) lacking any design embellishments and looking a lot more "generic" than the older ones, and (b) apparently having extremely serious flaws in their design, problems with building materials, overloaded plumbing and sewage systems, etc.

The question is, how did this happen? Surely over the course of the 20th century, techniques and materials should have become more durable and suited to the construction of long lasting buildings, not less?

Essentially it seems to me that when you compare the complexes from different eras, the ones in the early 20th century were designed and built with a view to being a permanent part of the city's fabric, whereas the ones designed and built in the late 20th century were constructed with more emphasis on speed than design or durability, and then essentially "plonked" randomly into the middle of any bits of vacant land the council could find. But why? Was there a very sudden overpopulation epidemic which necessitated the rapid construction of a gigantic amount of social housing, long term vision be damned? Were building regulations changed and overly relaxed, so that whatever prevailing attitudes or rules led to the incredibly good construction of the much older ones got thrown aside? Were these new designs thought at the time to be superior to the older ones, and this simply turned out to be an unforeseen mistake?

Really when you look at them, the contrast couldn't be more stark. To use a food analogy, the older complexes like Poplar Row and Oliver Bond look like restaurant meals, while the newer ones look more like takeaways. But although this fact is widely discussed, I've yet to see anyone explain exactly how or why it happened this way.

The answer to this question should be a priority for the council before new social housing complexes are built, in my view. There's absolutely no point in storing up future money wasting by building more apartment blocks which won't last more than a couple of decades. If blocks built in the 1970s are ready for demolition while blocks built in the 1930s are highly sought after and well maintained, somebody needs to be asking where we went wrong and what we can do to revert back to the older ways, because what happened in this case was that the public private partnerships of the 2000s collapsed, leaving all of these demolition projects half done and the council's usable housing stock massively depleted. The waste of money involved in each of these cases would make your skin crawl, and the way the global economy is going, it really doesn't look like we can afford to gamble on having the money to demolish and rebuild another generation of social housing in twenty or thirty years - we need to be looking at building ones which will last for the next century, like the older ones I've mentioned in my posts.

KomradeBishop

I'd assume it's a case of cheaper less-durable materials, cheaper construction? Particularly, if it's work that's contracted out to the private sector, they stand to pocket the savings, and externalize the long-term maintenance/early-demolition costs to the state (since the cost is decades away, it's a case of 'IBGYBG'), so it makes perfect sense to do the construction cheaply.

If you want to really dig into it, you could hunt out historical information for these developments, and find out who the architects/building-contractors were - the information would be in public records somewhere I'm sure.

Beginning in the 1950's, but really taking off during the 60's, you had a very big increase in planning corruption and property-related cronyism in Ireland (Elaine Byrne's book on corruption in Ireland goes into some of this) - where, as it got worse, you'd nearly need to be corrupt to be in the development business at all (e.g. no willingness to bribe? lose out on contracts/red-tape-permissions...) - which'd be the time standards start to lapse even more.

Baggy Trousers

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

So what is the answer to the OP's question? Yes or No?

In a word NO, but we are most certainly in for a slowdown!

Much of the growth over the past few years can be attributed to the QE money printing scheme, that has now ended and the lift that it gave to the economy had cooled down.

Sh1tbag OToole

Twould be kind of nice to see the whole globalized world economy thing come down with a massive bang, wouldn't want to see anyone starving or anything.

Kind of like project mayhem in Fight Club

screamer

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Twould be kind of nice to see the whole globalized world economy thing come down with a massive bang, wouldn't want to see anyone starving or anything.

Kind of like project mayhem in Fight Club

EH starving would be the least of your problems of the whole world economy went bang........

China has been given too much in the way of manufacturers moving there flooding the world with crappy quality products losing jobs in other countries to create them in China but the Chinese do not consume like we do. Less jobs here means less consumers to buy their crappy products......... it's like pigeons coming home to roost and I think it's not a bad thing to correct the balance a bit by seeing a cool down in China.
Will the world go tits up? Course not and domesday scaremongering isn't needed.

One problem with China going pop, is the fact that because "we" exported all our manufacturing there, we will have a real supply problem for stuff if the Chinese stop making it because they're broke! So many products are made in China that as the "boycott China" activists just before the Beijing Olympics found out, it as impossible to avoid Chinese made products and continue to lead a consumerist lifestyle.

Put simply, if China goes to pot, we'll have a hard time buying "stuff".

KingBrian2

screamer wrote: »

EH starving would be the least of your problems of the whole world economy went bang........

China has been given too much in the way of manufacturers moving there flooding the world with crappy quality products losing jobs in other countries to create them in China but the Chinese do not consume like we do. Less jobs here means less consumers to buy their crappy products......... it's like pigeons coming home to roost and I think it's not a bad thing to correct the balance a bit by seeing a cool down in China.
Will the world go tits up? Course not and domesday scaremongering isn't needed.

Many reports from media are showing that some parts of the world are in desperate need of emergency aid as food shortage has taken place.

Sh1tbag OToole

screamer wrote: »

EH starving would be the least of your problems of the whole world economy went bang........

China has been given too much in the way of manufacturers moving there flooding the world with crappy quality products losing jobs in other countries to create them in China but the Chinese do not consume like we do. Less jobs here means less consumers to buy their crappy products......... it's like pigeons coming home to roost and I think it's not a bad thing to correct the balance a bit by seeing a cool down in China.
Will the world go tits up? Course not and domesday scaremongering isn't needed.

The thing with not being able to import from China anymore is you have a larger buffer time to get your ducks in a row before the sh1t really hits the fan. If some country you depended on for food stopped exporting to you you'd have two weeks at the most to get your ducks in a row and food takes longer to grow than that.

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Define "enough housing"? presumably you mean "enough to drive down prices" but enough to drive down prices to what level?

I do agree we should aim at maximizing home ownership levels though.

Enough housing is housing for everybody who needs one. With security of tenure for families. This was achieved in the UK in the 60s. I didn't suggest maximising house ownership, I said that thatchers reforms caused a blip in ownership for a generation and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

You post assumes the private sector to be one monolithic entity which will not build cheap housing for a fear of deflating the price of existing housing, the private sector is not a single organization, company A doesn't care a jot if they push down the price of Company B's existing assets and if a smaller company C can specialize in providing cheap housing by under cutting both A and B that will happen.

His post assumed nothing of the sort but you retreat back to free market myths despite the evidence presented to you already that the free market doesn't provide enough housing. Why not? Because the bottom 30-60% depending on the area just can't afford to buy even the cheapest house.

But unemployment isn't a problem for society as a whole, yes there are some issues such as increased crime but these are relatively minor, the majority of the negative effects of unemployment come at an individual level and are to be dealt with at an individual level.

Of for the love of God. Are you saying that we shouldn't worry about 20% long term unemployment, or 30%? What about 90%. What effect would that have on society? None? Some? You don't even get the pro-capitalist economistic reason why long term unemployment would reduce growth in the overall economy, the simplicities of aggregate demand - econ 101 are beyond you.

Where did I say hard work and diligence alone makes people rich?

In the very first segue into this horror of a side argument.

It doesn't necessarily. As for owning a house in London, that's obviously going to be out of the hands of the average middle class person in Inner City London but that issue in isolation is not a major problem. There are other alternatives available such as house share, flats or to commute from the suburbs.

Repeating your argument doesn't make it a better argument. Families are not going to form in flat shares, house shares and commuting is painful.

Well if they want to live in London, yes. I'm not sure what exactly you want here. High population density means the only way to build is up, if government regulations stop companies building up then the only alternative is house share or commute.

But government regulations are not to blame - although I too would relax them - because the private sector won't build enough housing for everybody. But yes, London needs to build up. Socialist housing was often high rise, though it needs to be of much better quality.

BorneTobyWilde

https://media.giphy.com/media/374pcIBVEGb6g/giphy.gif