Search results for:

Oh that’s good.
There’s been polling recently that most people don’t agree with the current House of Lords situation, but also that an elected chamber wasn’t preferable either.

Will be nice to see how this changes that conversation.

Just watched Michael Clayton, which the writer of Andor (Tony Gilroy) wrote and directed.

He's got a very good instinct for all of the political/managerial weirdness that's appeared in the show too. Particularly the muted, abbreviated corporate speak of the security council, where it's all too relatable given that it's an authoritarian empire.

There's a pretty good interview with him here too:
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/andor-explained-season-1-finale-season-2-preview-1234626573/

Weird. How about an additional tax that goes directly to the workers. We could call it “raising the minimum wage”…

Okay, well I'm out of ideas then. Thanks for the help anyway!

How about the test page linked from stack overflow?
https://www.autoledky.sk/ios.php

That's bizarre, the 'current.html' is just a copy of this page…
Does it generally happen on every page load, or just when navigating between pages, or after having pressed the back button, or any other action?

I've tried testing this on BrowserStack with iOS 16 and I couldn't replicate it there either.

This stackoverflow post seems to point to a potential problem with the pattern attribute on the <input>.

I've copied the HTML of this page and made a few tweaks as a test case. Can anyone with the issue click on each of these links and confirm if the number input opens?

[links removed]

I bought some recently, but didn’t fit them (I bought the wrong size).

Eventually fitted some VO alu guards which only use a single set of stays, but the GB ones were much much stiffer than the alu ones, and don’t have much sideways flex. I’d be very surprised if an additional set of stays make any difference at all.

And those thresholds are transferred to the spouse, so it’s effectively a max of £1m untaxed for a set of parents.

It’s a weirdly high threshold…

Nah, it’s all good. I probably sound the same…

And I’m not sure mildly limiting the freedoms of landlords in areas they’re not useful is particularly statist, but it takes all sorts :)

Yep, pretty much. A conflation of financial capital and actual capital/real stuff. Money is just the technology we use to determine distribution (edit: and creation) of real wealth.

Not that the tories know that…

The problem with this kind of demand>supply thinking is that, in aggregate, we have more buildings per capita and bedrooms per capita than we’ve ever had. Notwithstanding local mismatches in cities, it’s ultimately an issue of distribution. Managing borrowing and taxation is the only way around that.

Basically a post-hoc rule of thumb to make sure banks are lending responsibly. It’s largely bullshit these days, but still grips common knowledge.

Not necessarily. Market-driven capital allocation tends toward over-centralisation in natural monopolies, like land. Allowing private building for only new homes just uses that in a socially productive manner, without reducing the private capital of others.

(I’d argue that landlords are bad capitalists, much like Adam Smith.)

I think one of the avenues to go down here is to disallow BTL mortgages for existing properties, and only allow it on new ones.

Also happily creates an incentive for potential landlords to build or fund the building of new homes, but particularly where rentals are most needed: on brownfield plots in cities and densifying the suburbs, allowing things like cycling infrastructure to become more viable.

Yeah, absolutely. And probably smaller/stricter income multipliers too, as well as everything @Stonehedge said a little while back about BTL & rent control.

The other issue is that over 50% of homeowners don't have a mortgage at all. Ideally, that buying power needs to be rebalanced too, so first-time buyers can even get a look-in.

Thanks, and I did read that a few years back, will re-read.

I guess, looking from a perspective of wanting higher housing security and less mortgage volatility in the UK, additional insurance and protection of deposits or other ways of reducing the possibility of bank runs could then assist a move toward longer term fixed mortgages.

Anyway, I’ll stop derailing the thread now. Thanks for your responses.

Fannie (and the other agencies) are the repackager.

Thanks, that's the bit I was missing — makes a lot of sense.

The average bank is funded with current accounts and shortish-duration savings products so cannot do this.

My money multiplier comment was more aimed at this. As I understand it — and this is a bit basic, I'll admit — is that if you throw out the Diamond-Dybvig model, there's no actual connection between their long term assets/mortgages and their short term liabilities/giving out deposits. So in theory we could have 30-year fixes, from new money, because the balances are unrelated, and a bank's ability to pay its deposits is more about their other services.

Or is that too simplistic?

Weirdly though, the US have that with Fannie Mae anyway, so it seems peculiar that they still need the repackaging. I'm not going to pretend I know how all this works — i'm sure with the right regulation, it could still be a good system.

And, as here, hasn't the 'money multiplier' income model for banks been debunked somewhat, since private banks create new money with new lending?

(Gonna change my username now — don't want work checking up on me chatting shit about banks during work hours…)

There's nothing inherently wrong with sub prime mortgages, either. It's a social net positive for people to have a secure home, even if purchased with 100% mortgages and temporarily underwater with some reasonably small amount of negative equity. It's still cheaper and more secure than renting if you're buying a place to live for 4+ years.

Sadly we didn't seem to learn the right thing from '08 — most mortgages in the US are still immediately repackaged/sold, and a lot of regulation added here was more about putting the boot on potential borrowers (higher deposit requirements, stress test), rather than the banks taking on a bit of risk, reflecting it in slightly higher rates, and not allowing bonkers housing inflation for a decade.

More recently, too, when all >90% mortgage products were removed, it'll only keep more people out of homeownership, and in insecure tenancies.

You could probably map nominal house prices onto the viewing figures of 'Location, Location, Location' and 'Homes Under The Hammer' in the last few decades.

I predict a 'Changing Rooms' reboot in about 2037.

Edit: well fuck, looks like they relaunched that in 2021… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_Rooms

If the CGT policy were at all tenable (it's not politically, but should be), the implementation would likely start for gains in the future, and not back-dated.

We're not going to see 400% gains in the next decade or two (base rates are not going back to 0%), and the government would have to engage in unrealistic levels of QE and demand-side pumping to make anything close to that level of housing inflation happen again.

So in that instance, old Flo can happily downsize, banking 40 years worth of inflation untaxed, and probably outbid younger families for the already low number of 1–2 bedroom starter homes in the country.

This country's housing policy is fucked.

Hi Dave,
I was on your course about 8 years ago too. I bloody loved it, and wish you all the best. Learned a lot, and managed to ride a fair few miles on it too. Best holiday I had! Hope you enjoy whatever you do next :)

Mint is a most definitely a word and doesn’t deserve apstrophes
#nothernisms

Koga did a few ovalised tubes in FM-1, too!