"Abuse of power"

The Government's policy banning Bermudians from selling their property to non-Bermudians was dealt a humiliating blow in Supreme Court on Friday.

Puisne judge Geoffrey Bell found that the policy had breached the "legitimate expectations" of local developers Alan and Vera Rosa Marshall, who had been hoping to sell their mansion GoldenEye to a foreign buyer for $45 million. The Government's policy, said Mr. Bell, was "unfair", "unlawful" and an "abuse of power".

Given the laughable arguments that were advanced by the Government's counsel during the case, I'm not surprised by the outcome. That said, it's not clear whether the judge's decision spells the end of the ban. The Marshalls started building GoldenEye before the ban was announced, and so had no reason to think that they would not be able to sell it to a foreigner. Someone building or buying a similar property today would not have the same expectation.

Nevertheless, the ruling is an embarrassment for Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton, who was unable to explain why he thought the policy was a good idea. Given that, perhaps it's time for him to concede defeat and rescind it.

Comments

[Martin on 05.03.06 at 11:44]

It is also time to amend/remove the ludicrous term limits policy, before we start loosing our talent and start struggling to replace it.

This type of knee jerk legislation and playing to the gallery, is not good either for the island or the integrity of the PLP.

[Silencio on 05.03.06 at 12:46]

This was another spectacular example of the PLP's lack of commitment to get things right. Cases like the Marshall's should have been considered and exempted from the policy. Raise the ARV to cover houses at the lower values, ban the sale of undeveloped property and allow the sale of property that has already been built for specialty markets, like the Marshalls.

[J Starling on 05.03.06 at 13:12]

I'll be honest and admit that I haven't had time to research the particulair case of the GoldenEye property. However, from a Bermudian struggling to cover rent, electricity, groceries and the like, I am really pissed off seeing the rock sold off to the highest bidder, the deluge be damned. These large estates, up at Tuckers Town and Fairylands ought to be nationalised, converted into apartments, and utilised for the good of society. Constantly building cottages is destroying what little nature we have left, we need to start building apartment blocks like the Singaporeans have. All I'm seeing BHC spendtheir focus on is building homes for private sale - for the highest bidder, and doing hardly anything for the hosuing crisis asa whole. These people, I'm sure they've spent a lot of their money on this palace, but I feel they are traitors, interested only in the short term private profit of pieces of silver. sure, great, they get to sell their mansion and live it up like a Raj, I'm sure the workers struggling to pay rent take a lot of comfort in that.

[ace on 05.03.06 at 13:21]

"These large estates, up at Tuckers Town and Fairylands ought to be nationalised, converted into apartments, and utilised for the good of society."

Well said Comrade Stalin...errr Comrade Starling.

[ken on 05.03.06 at 14:42]

I would have been perfectly happy with the government purchasing Goldeneye, and turning it into emergency housing or affordable housing. But we can't have the residents of tuckers town pissed off at us can we? I mean who are we as Bermudians to decide what happens to our land. Shoot, 1/2 that land if not more was stolen from black Bermudians anyway!

[tilti on 05.03.06 at 14:43]

J Starling, is you post in reaction adislike of the bourgeois, or about getting Bermudians housed? Why do rich people have to be the victims of rash government nationalization? Because you don’t like them? There are far more efficient means of housing that would not involve capital flight. Just allow builders to build up, and don’t allow tenants of BHC properties to take full ownership of their property. As far as I can tell, at present tenants can get subsidized housing and then later sell it at market value.

[tilti on 05.03.06 at 14:47]

ken, that comment doesn't make any sense. For the$45 million that it would have taken for the government to buy this ugly house, they could have taken all the homeless in Bermuda and housed them for the rest of their lives in chalets in the Swiss Alps. It isn't about not pissing off the local residents - although surely when you pay $20million (and the government receieves an additional $5 of that) you don't expect your neighborhood to be turned into a socialist experiment by a short sighted government.

[chapa on 05.03.06 at 15:31]

I do not know if this is true or not - you know what the Bermuda gossip mill is like - but I have been lead to believe that some of the 'lottery' winners, who are presently receiving a housing allowance, will be able to use that allowance to pay for the subsidized housing...perhaps someone else can throw light on whether this is, indeed, true or not. (Of course, that is if these units actually ever get built)!!

[hotspur on 05.03.06 at 16:16]

Racism doesn’t hold a candle to greed when it comes to Bermuda’s issues. It all boils down to greed. Everyone wants to end up in the big house on the hill with 3 or 4 rentals (expats preferred of course (hypocrite pie anyone?)) and will sell their first born to get it.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 05.03.06 at 19:58]

I agree with the decision that has been handed down.

While on the surface I agree with the policy implemented by the government, I also believe that cases like GoldenEye needed to be excluded from the rule.

GoldenEye was clearly built to be sold to foreigners as I doubt there is a Bermudian, even if financially able, that would purchase the property and clearly the property was developed prior to the policy's inception.

I do not agree with selling Bermuda's real estate to the highest bidder but if developments were clearly developed specifically for sale to foreigners, had an appraised value above what Bermudians could reasonably afford (even a small number of Bermudians) and were willing to pay and were built prior to the policy's inception then they should have been excluded from the policy.

So while I agree with the decision, I do not agree that Randy Horton needs to rescind his Ministry's policy, make some amendments for these kinds of cases, yes but rescind, No.

[Point Finger on 05.03.06 at 21:12]

Guilden,
You raise several good points, one thing we have to consider is how much money in taxes would the government make off this Sale? Could this be used for an effective housing solution.

You are correct that there should be limitations on sales of properties to overseas buyers. Instead of shutting down sales for foreign interests entirely, restrictions could be placed on these sales.
For example minimal purchase prices say $15 million, also have a limit number of sales per year, say 15. These are just numbers for examples.

These numbers can be revisted each year. This means foreign capital injection. Total sales for year would be at least 225 million, how much of this would be tax base?
not sure the rate-maybe $15 million or so?

Put this money in an account for low cost housing, has to be high rise building. Look at the Canadian hotel, how many people it housed, and how small square footage it occupied. Construct High raise condos- 3 bedroom-combo kitchen /living room. Housing is so expensive-focus on having the condos occupied by a family (first priority)-say mother/father, kids, and grandparents- help reduce mortgage burden, and thus further reduce housing demand.

How many units could be built with $15 million?
at say $400K each it would be 38 units. A high rise should reduce the cost. Aggressive rental purcahse programs could make this a cyclical solution, and allows family buy a piece of the rock.

Problem with the plan is it would require a fiscally responsible government to enforce.

Bermuda's track record does not bode well.

[NoVote on 05.03.06 at 21:35]

Guilden,

I have some sympathy for what Randy Horton is trying to achieve by putting more of Bermuda's land back in the hands of Bermudians: no issue with the stated goal at all.

The problem, however, is that the policy won't have this effect.

Consider first those properties currently owned by Bermudians that could have been sold to foreigners before the introduction of Randy Horton's policy. Since these are already owned by Bermudians, it's hard to see how the policy helps to Bermudianise them. Obviously there is a possibility that these properties could have been sold to a foreigner, but as a proportion of those that were eligible to be sold to foreigners, those that were Bermudian owned is small.

Second, consider those properties that are currently owned by foreigners and under Randy Horton's policy remain eligible to be sold to foreigners or Bermudians. If these are sold to foreigners, then no improvement in the Bermudianisation of Bermuda's land is achieved. If these are sold to Bermudians, then immediately the new Bermudian owner will experience a capital loss, because the property can no longer be marketed to foreigners. The result of this is that Bermudian's simply won't buy these types of properties.

Hence, what Randy Horton's policy actually does is lock in for all eternity the proportion of Bermuda's land owned by foreigners!

When will the government start thinking things through properly? Muppets!

[J Starling on 05.03.06 at 21:41]

Ace - Yes, ironic that my name and Stalin's nom de guerre are similiar phonetically. His real name was Dugashevelli, Stalin roughly translates as Steel from the Russian. I am decidedly anti-Stalinist. I follow more after Luxemburg.

Titti - There are good bourgeois and bad ones too, they are simply doing what they exist for, capitalism is amoral. Rash nationalisation would lead to capital flight, I acknowledge that. I won't get into a detailed political-economic debate here. My statement, rash as it was, was my gut feeling. Raw emotion, not reflection. Perhaps a cap on rents, a coordinated affordable apartment building creation would be better for now. Derelict houses however should be nationalised (with fair compensation perhaps). But, yes, I feel those are all band-aid solutions, short term fixes. I am angry that I'll most likely never own a peice of the rock, that rich non-Bermudians should have a greater chance of that than I. I don't think I'm xenophobic, but it does vex me. Our current system is not sustainable, perhaps we have already crossed the tipping point. As far as I see it this capitalist expeiment has so far failed. Sure, we are all richer in material GDP terms, but the rate of inequality has increased similarly. Free market capitalism has failed, social democracy has failed, totalitarian socialism has failed, might as well try democratic socialism before we descend into anarchic barbarism.

[Martin on 05.03.06 at 21:49]

Whether the Govt appeal the decision would appear to rest upon the details of the decision once they are known.

One suspects that if the Govt had thought the policy change through in some detail, this situation would never have arisen in the first place.

Now, it could be that the principle that the Govt wanted to establish, i.e. keeping more property in the hand sof Bermudians may be lost.

As I said in the beginning, knee jerk policy is not good for anyone.

[NoVote on 05.03.06 at 22:46]

J Starling - I sympathise with you that you may never own a piece of the Rock. However, Randy Horton's policy really does nothing to help you, and is largely irrelevant in the debate in which you've engaged in your post.

The 300 or so houses in Bermuda that can be sold to foreigners have very little impact upon the overall housing market in which you would likely be participating, if you could enter it at all.

The force driving mainstream property prices in Bermuda is the success of the IB-based economy and not capital from billionaires buying into Tuckers Town.

We should try not to confuse issues here.

NV

P.S. When you contemplate the impossibility of owning a home of your own in Bermuda, consider yourself lucky though that you're not like me: merrily(?) working away every day to pay for somebody else to own a piece of the Rock(fortunately this person is my spouse...it is, however, still a little irritating!).

[J Starling on 05.03.06 at 22:57]

Novote - I'll research the legislation, as I stated at the begining I have not done so yet and was discussing in the abstract, always a mistake on these things. You are right, IB is the key to our current prosperity - maybe we could then nationalise all other sectors? somehow I think the IB crew would still get a little nervous. As for your consolotion, I appreciate the sentiment, but it doesn't really help. One is torn between the prospect of loving my country but living in an uphill battle to not become destitute, and emigrating to another country. I don't like either prospect, but am doing what I can. I doubt I'm alone in this regard.

[Lost in Flatts on 06.03.06 at 05:59]

Jstarling,

I understand your concern for Bermudians getting the best of Bermuda, but the comment 'nationalise all other sectors' is downright terrifying. Have you seen how efficiently government currently run things? The public sector in Bermuda is horrifically inefficient, the only thing keeping us going is the private sector, which more and more seems to do so in spite of, rather than with the aid of the current administration.

Bottom line about this piece of legislature is it had some good intentions, but wasn't thought out and in reality would never work as written. Kind of sums up most things to come out of cabinet recently...

[Pitts Bay on 06.03.06 at 07:32]

If all alien licence holder fees (22% of sale price) and all tax paid on the rent received by foreign land owners renting their property, was applied to building affordable housing, then this would go a long way to providing the necessary capital. The sale of one house (GoldenEye) would have raised at least $10,000,000 in the government coffers. That is a fair bit of funding.

For that matter, why not include all land based taxes, for example Land Tax, Stamp Duty on land transfers. Such funds should be ear marked for housing issues

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 06.03.06 at 08:56]

J. Starling,

"...we could then nationalise all other sectors..."

This is truly a frightening comment. I believe a government can have a social conscience without becoming socialist. I do not favour any kind of nationalisation because governments by their very nature are inefficient and will use any proceeds from nationalised entities to fund the inefficiencies.

The private sector has historically done very well in Bermuda and I think it should continue to operate as it does.

[OnDeWata __/)__ on 06.03.06 at 14:14]

I have to concur with JS & Guilden that the Policy is very flawed and not well thought out...However, some kind on control must be placed on the Real Estate market.
Far too many Bermudians are buying, fixing up & reselling simply to make money. No Pride in Ownership anymore, no Family Homestead, as Hotspur rightly says that = Greed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for making money for your kids education/retirement/etc. but it is killing the little guy who wants a home for their family.

[H Reardon on 06.03.06 at 14:34]

"...and emigrating to another country."

Posted by J Starling on 05.03.06 at 22:57

Given your comments, I'd suggest Cuba or North Korea.

"...capitalism is amoral."

Exactly. Socialism is immoral.

[Mirror on 06.03.06 at 14:48]

"Far too many Bermudians are buying, fixing up & reselling simply to make money."

....and you have a better idea?

[tilti on 06.03.06 at 15:06]

"Far too many Bermudians are buying, fixing up & reselling simply to make money." JS
Doesn't this open the door to young smart bermudians to buy the delapidated houses of land rich money poor families and sell them at a profit so that they can develop their own "Family Homestead?"

[Mirror on 06.03.06 at 15:18]

My point exactly. In fact its one of the only ways the average guy can get into the housing market in Bda now.

If you think you're gonna get your dream house first time out - you'll be disappointed.

[Andrew on 06.03.06 at 15:57]

Keeping "Golden-Eye" off the market won't help the single mother of three that is trying to put a roof over her childrens' heads. It will, however, by votes by placating the ignorant masses that blame their own economic deficiencies on the financially gifted.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. "Affordable housing" should not be equated with everyone being able to aford a $900,000 house. The only way some people are going to be able to afford such a place is if somebody else pays for it. That somebosd shouldn't be the government, international business, taxpayers, or whomever else is the target of the day. Build housing that people can afford. If that means that the bottom 10% of the population has to live in studio apartments crammed into high-density apartment buildings, then build the damn things and move on to solving other social issues.

[Onion on 06.03.06 at 16:26]

I think the judge's ruling was correct. I know what Government was trying to do but they did not think this through thoroughly at all. Shutting out the likes of Oprah Winfrey was just dumb. Think how much would she have done for the island's profile. She probably would have even done shows from her house in Bermuda. I digress.

Our competition is in the ACE's and XL's buying up the large condo developments going for $900k and up per unit with a Bermudian front man and a trust company. That is what is killing us.

[Bill Cook on 06.03.06 at 17:12]

Perhaps Starlings idea of nationalising is not the way to go but the ideal behind the concept is not without merit.

Much as I think Government has to stay clear of interfering per se' it is of paramount importance that the working class who are unable to get into the higher paying jobs are able to have reasonable accomodation.

Government must be the custodians of large tracts of land to build multible housing units on and own that can accomodate all those Bermudians who fall into that category.

Not everyone desires to own their own home and spend their life paying for it while they fulfill an otherwise useful role doing a needed job etc.

That such housing will of neccessity require subsidising is acceptable if it cuts down on need to import labour.

If we had done this 20 yrs ago at those prices and had 1000 such units we would not be in this position now and the units would have become self supporting no longer needing subsidising in my opinion.

[tilti on 06.03.06 at 18:26]

Onion, for clarification's sake, you may being giving the likes of ACE and XL a bad wrap. ACE has a charitable trust, it is operated entirely idependently of ACE, but receives millions each year to donate to any cause they see fit. They have donated a substantial amount of that money and have used another portion to buy executive houses, that are later rented out to ACE staff. But, the houses belong to the trust.
They then use the rent payments to pay the mortgage and sustain huge charity projects locally. Essentially, all expat rent is being given back to the community. Should ACE decide to leave the island, the foundation keeps all the properties.
The target of your attack should maybe be the developers who build these houses that are unafforable for Bermudians. Not the exempt companies who buy them.

[blovator on 06.03.06 at 21:44]

The fault is clearly with the government who, in some dream palace of thier own failed to see this scenario. They do not actually pursue land policy with any vigor. They are a lazy government much like the last one. This party will continue to be a very good party for the rich. The rest of us shall pay the tab. This may not be thier intent but it is their effect because they simply do not write comprehensive policy.

[J Starling on 07.03.06 at 08:40]

Lost in Flatts - My reference to 'nationalising all other sectors' was more of a tongue in cheeck reply to NoVotes comments about only IB being profitable and not to confuse issues. Poorly doen perhaps - relax.

Mirror - I don't believe that was my quote, but I do understand the sentiments behind it.

H Reardon - Real cute. I would choose Cuba however. :) Its a lot warmer.

Titti - Concerning the oppurtunities behind redoing houses and selling them. a) Where do I get the capital? Sell my soul to the bank/devil? b) I am a biologist, not a construction worker.

Mr. Cook - I do support the ultimate socialisation of society and the means of production, but not in the manner that they have historically occurred, ie. autocratic command economies. It is important to foster workers control, that is democratic councils first. As I'm sure Mr. Bob Stewart would be eager to state should he read this, autocracy in command economies lead to failure. He rests on the Austrian school of economics on this matter, ironically supported by Trotsky here. Without democratic participation, the economy will falter, being used to beuarcratic ends and not tfor the good of society. And so economic reform must be mirrored similteonously with democratic reforms. I have said before, I oppose Stalinism. But I cannot deny the successes it did have. As a scientist one doesn't simply reject the whole hypothesis based on the results, you go back and analyse what went wrong, and adjust the hypothesis accordingly. The Leninist-Stalinist idea of a vanguard and strong central committees are flawed, as history has shown, but the command economy is superior, if applied correctly (democratically).

[Tiger Bay on 07.03.06 at 08:55]

"I oppose Stalinism. But I cannot deny the successes it did have."

Yes. Stalinism refined repression and the gulag to a fine art. Success!

"but the command economy is superior, if applied correctly (democratically)"

Not sure the case of France - if not a "command economy" then at least heavily centralised - supports this claim.

[Uncle Elvis on 07.03.06 at 09:16]

"In Soviet Russia, you do not have success... Success has YOU!"
-The great Russian philosopher Yakov Smirnov-

[ace on 07.03.06 at 09:19]

but the command economy is superior, if applied correctly (democratically)

Command economy? Is this like the "planned economy" that drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy?

You are kidding right?

How can you have a democratically planned economy? Someone has to decide how much steel is required for any upcoming year, how much fuel, how much hairspray, how much grain, how much candy, how much...well, everything?

Whatcha gonna do have a vote on each product required?

[Triggerfish on 07.03.06 at 09:50]

"I oppose Stalinism. But I cannot deny the successes it did have."

You're tongue is firmly in your cheek, right? Successes? Where to begin? The Gulags? The proto-genocide of the Kulaks? The Great Terror that resulted in the "liquidations" of millions of Soviet citizens who may have been half-a-minute behind the latest party line? The manufactured (and wholly imaginary) figures charting economic progress? The "Pact of Steel" with Hitler that resulted, first, in the dismemberment of Poland and, secondly, in the invasion of the Soviet Union itself? Dear God in heaven ... if these are your idea of successes please tell me what you consider to be Stalinism's failures.

[Triggerfish on 07.03.06 at 09:51]

"Our competition is in the ACE's and XL's buying up the large condo developments going for $900k and up per unit with a Bermudian front man and a trust company. That is what is killing us."

Truer words and all that ... Well said, Onion.

[OnDeWata __/)__ on 07.03.06 at 10:38]

titti & Mirror: You made my point for me.

Your turn-and-burn approach to real estate is driving the market through the roof. You...not ACE & XL.

Our children will be buying 2BR condos for $10 million if YOU keep this up.

That is of course assuming the market doesn't collapse making HSBC/BNTB/Gibbons the largest landowners in Bermuda!!

[Onion on 07.03.06 at 10:58]

Onedewata,

HSBC already is effectively one of the largest land owners in Bermuda. And they are foreign.

[tilti on 07.03.06 at 11:02]

OnDeWata_/)_
I am a 22 year old student in Canada sharing an apartment with a family of racoons and $300 in my savings account. I highly doubt that I am doing anything to raise the property value in Bermuda.
Call me cold, but I just do not think that it is a reasonable expectation that everyone should be able to own a 2 BR Bermuda cottage with a nice front yard and central air-conditioning. This desire from most Bermudians to own the perfect house is what is driving up the market because builders are responding to it.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 07.03.06 at 11:16]

Tilti,

"...I just do not think that it is a reasonable expectation that everyone should be able to own a 2 BR Bermuda cottage with a nice front yard and central air-conditioning."

Why this not a reasonable expectation? Why should the "Bermuda Dream" be any different than the "dream" of any other country?

It may not be reasonable if one chooses not to put in the effort that is required to achieve it but anyone who works hard and spends their pennies wisely should have a reasonable expectation to be able to own a home in their own country.

If you made this statement to a Canadian or an American it would be deemed ludicrous. Why should the expectations of Bermudians be any different?

[tilti on 07.03.06 at 11:25]

Guilden, I think there is a distinction between our posts. I too believe that ANYONE can own a house in Bermuda and achieve what you have called "the Bermdua Dream" it just takes hard work, an education and thriftiness. I do not, however, beleive that EVERYONE can achieve this. Property is Bermuda is a scarce commodity which means that people will be excluded. It is a different issue altogether in the US or Canada - there are a gazillion miles of availible land (in Kingston where I am an acre is $1,000CAN), but you are out in the Suburbs. if you want to live in downtown Toronto or New York in a red stone it is going to cost you and not everyone can afford that. The difference though, is that in toronto you can buy your own apartment in a highrise.
Bermuda has a wide variety of income levels, but seemingly only one variety of housing structure that doesn't match up to what the average person can reasonably afford.

[Mirror on 07.03.06 at 11:26]

Ondewater:

As an average guy, I knew the only way I could ever afford a decent place in Bda was to start with a run down piece of sh*t. I only did what was necessary.

So many Bermudians consider this beneath them and want their pool and waterfront straight away.

Ain't gonna happen.

[silencedogood on 07.03.06 at 11:47]

Guilden,

One word: land

Even canada, where most of its landmass is too far north to be considered "desireable", has vastly larger amounts of land than we do. You could build on every pebble here and not have enough for every Bermudian to own a two bedroom.

This is aggravated by a desire among many for instant rather than deferred gratification, the trend of children to have multiple children born early and outside marriage, and resistance to high-rise condos (which is lessining lately thankfully).

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 07.03.06 at 12:05]

Tilti,

We are actually in agreement anyone who is willing to work hard and make the necessary sacrifice should reasonably have the expectation of homeownership.

Mirror has stated one sensible way to go about it.

Maybe I misinterpreted your post, if so I apologise. When I read "everyone" I interpret that to be only those who are willing to work hard and sacrifice, not those who simply sit back and complain, without making any real effort.

[J Starling on 07.03.06 at 13:20]

Tiger Bay, Ace and Triggerfish - It is easy to point out the negative aspects of Soviet life. Make no mistake, it was a totalitarian state. The suprression of democracy, of criticism, prevented many prominent Marxists from pointing out the flaws. Trotsky and others attempted, pointing out that without democratic criticism there would be no accountablitiy and production would be based on bureaucratic needs and separated from social needs, quantity over quality. Stalin more or less liquidated or silenced these critics. Does this mean a planned economy is flawed? No, it only proves that a totalitarian command economy is flawed. How do you think the Russians would have been if they had continued under Tsarism? My bet is they would not have achieved the increases in life quality that they did. There were calls for democratisation, Trotsky and the Ukrainian president (Raskinov?) were only the leaders of this. The command economy does have its benefits, even under Stalinist styles - compare Cuba pre-Castro and post, or with Haiti and Dominca. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I don't think you can say they are not good in some respects. America has its flaws, its dirty secrets also. They are good and bad points to both systems.

We are limited by land, and our wage system. Despite hard work, effort, conserving of monies, not everyone will be able to buy/build their own house. There are discrepencies in education, intelligence, plus inheritance and networking that affect the individuals ability to realise this dream.

[Lost in Flatts on 07.03.06 at 13:28]

I'd love to get into this debate, clearly here isn't the right place though. What I will quickly interject is that my personal belief, and I've almost never seen it invalidated, is that people respond to incentives. And people are generally selfish. Until one of those two things changes, a planned economy will not work, anywhere, with any leader. In my opinion of course.

[tilti on 07.03.06 at 13:39]

Despite hard work, effort, conserving of monies, not everyone will be able to buy/build their own house. There are discrepencies in education, intelligence, plus inheritance and networking that affect the individuals ability to realise this dream. -J Starling

I believe that discrepencies in intelligence and networking would occur in any economy one could conceive of - there would just be different networks that favoured differnet individuals and different things valued as intelligent, so I fail to see how socialism would be an effective alternative solution.

[H Reardon on 07.03.06 at 14:28]

"...that people respond to incentives. And people are generally selfish."

Posted by Lost in Flatts on 07.03.06 at 13:28

You are on the right tract, Flatts, but turn it around. What Socialism requires, by definition, is that the productive work not for themselves, but for others--the unproductive. The more productive you are, the more is taken from you and given to others. A society that requires the productive to carry the unproductive on their backs will never be successful--particularly once the productive realize their plight. Why do you think Socialism requires closed borders? So that the leeches can continue to suck.

J Starling, please keep it up--that is great stuff.

Elvis, I loved your Yakov Smirnov quote.

"Our children will be buying 2BR condos for $10 million if YOU keep this up."

Posted by OnDeWata __/)__ on 07.03.06 at 10:38

For 2BR condos to cost $10 million, the economy has to produce the wealth to afford it. Said another way, the income of the people of Bermuda will need to rise for the prices to be driven up. You seem to think that buying and fixing up a condo somehow "lifts the tide" without the demand (driven by earnings or a change in preference). Don't condemn the guy supplying the market what it wants, condemn the people buying houses--they determine the price.

[H Reardon on 07.03.06 at 14:29]

"...that people respond to incentives. And people are generally selfish."

Posted by Lost in Flatts on 07.03.06 at 13:28

You are on the right tract, Flatts, but turn it around. What Socialism requires, by definition, is that the productive work not for themselves, but for others--the unproductive. The more productive you are, the more is taken from you and given to others. A society that requires the productive to carry the unproductive on their backs will never be successful--particularly once the productive realize their plight. Why do you think Socialism requires closed borders? So that the leeches can continue to suck.

J Starling, please keep it up--that is great stuff.

Elvis, I loved your Yakov Smirnov quote.

"Our children will be buying 2BR condos for $10 million if YOU keep this up."

Posted by OnDeWata __/)__ on 07.03.06 at 10:38

For 2BR condos to cost $10 million, the economy has to produce the wealth to afford it. Said another way, the income of the people of Bermuda will need to rise for the prices to be driven up. You seem to think that buying and fixing up a condo somehow "lifts the tide" without the demand (driven by earnings or a change in preference). Don't condemn the guy supplying the market what it wants, condemn the people buying houses--they determine the price.

[observor on 07.03.06 at 15:05]

J Starling

Are there any current real world examples of a country that has successfully implemented your concept of a planned economy?

[Mirror on 07.03.06 at 15:22]

"Our children will be buying 2BR condos for $10 million if YOU keep this up."

You are giving me way too much credit here.

I just realised that instead of moaning about not being able to buy a nice house, that there was a way to do it: Buy a piece of crap, fix it up, sell it. Buy something a bit better, fix it up a bit, sell it. Eventually buy your dream house - or close enough.

A 20 year labour of love to be sure - but more productive that just complaining about it.