Communism / Socialism

Mattconrov said:
I've pretty much said the same; I've also said that successfull businesses tend to get bought out/funded buy larger organisations. This certainly will cause problems with diversity of choice.

Just because a company has a different name, doesn't mean it isn't owned by another you may not know.

I say this as fact and mean no offence, as I'm sure you're aware the way things work.

I'm a private landlord. Landlord with a small l. I have one property. If I want to purchase more houses (which i don't) how do I compete with someone like Blackrock the private equity firm hovering up millions of properties?

So yes coperate capitalism worked for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Certainly check out the family tree on gates; but it won't help the majority of small businesses.
Click to expand...
You compete by offering something people want at a competitive price.
 
McAhuna said:
Weirdly, when it was only the man who worked, families could easily afford a house. Now, with most families have two earners, housing has become unaffordabe.
Click to expand...
True. But every 'career woman' country has folk who can buy "a place in the sun" in every trad-wife country.

Trad wives = affordable housing.

Neo western capitalist-communism ....us today in 2026.... lots of money and very few kids born to workers.
 
Last edited:
Banks traditionally lent money for mortgages on one person's wages. So at one time, 1 wage earner was enough to buy a house. When 2 wage earners appeared, the banks could lend even more money. The 2 incomes then created the new template for country.

Obvious pro's and cons to this. The pro being that you could afford a more luxurious house. The cons being you both needed to work. Not so good if you're single though.
 
georgenorman said:
How do you know that, where is Capitalism unregulated? When has it ever been unregulated in some ways? Communism is highly regulated but that doesn't make it work any better, although I suppose you could argue that Pol Pot's regime was unregulated - making it of course even more lunatic than the usual communist shambles.
Click to expand...
More totalitarian?
 
chris123 said:
More totalitarian?
Click to expand...
What Pol Pot's Cambodia? Anyone could be killed for any reason, a vile, wicked regime as most Communist regimes were and are and will be.
 
Mattconrov said:
Banks traditionally lent money for mortgages on one person's wages. So at one time, 1 wage earner was enough to buy a house. When 2 wage earners appeared, the banks could lend even more money. The 2 incomes then created the new template for country.

Obvious pro's and cons to this. The pro being that you could afford a more luxurious house.
Click to expand...
London 1920. A postman could own a good house in Clapham plus a stay-at home wife & 4 kids.

Its no accident the government has rigged the game. When the unemployed have nicer homes than working people..? you are living the commie nightmare.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top