If you know a town is shit, it's your moral obligation to tell them so that their kids and smart residents move out. Post 2000s progressive seem to think that Towns, religions and culture can form opinions. They are trying to be "empathetic" and so get tricked by scammers who personally benefit from these horrible situations.
But I like leaving snarky comments, so I'm not going to stop doing it.
Thus I wonder what demographic that at one time would have bought this book is not going to be buying this book now.
If they agree that it sucks, it probably sucks.
If they get really mad and defensive about it, it definitely sucks.
If they're just bemused or laugh it off, it's probably nice.
The original one did not.
It was all about insulting the Isle of Sheppey (Western UK). I think an ex-Shep wrote it.
Looks like all traces are gone. I understand that death threats were involved.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040411225059/http://www.sheppe...
> The island was shat from the arse of the Norse god Fuctup whilst he was suffering a bout of diarrhoea as a side effect of his recent withdrawal from scag. And that's true, as true as I'm sitting here. > A large number of policefolk who work on Sheppey are "Specials", which by a startling coincidence is also an affectionate term used to describe people with learning disabilities. > Christian based cults aside, the main religious practices on the island usually resemble primitive tribal type worship. Drug induced trances are a common tool for reaching the spirits beyond. These trances are often extended to include ritual drug induced self sacrifice- a deeply sacred activity known commonly to the natives as "Overdose".
You go to the "culture" section and there's just a single word, "NO." xD
Got my right and left mixed up.
It just won’t be as popular today. And would, ironically, be crapped on by other people, which is what the author is unhappy about.
Thats what the author means, and represents the entirety of the “Oh I am so oppressed because I can’t say shitty unfunny jokes because other people will make shitty unfunny jokes about me in response” genre of argument.
The difference between then and now is that the people in the “crap towns” have the opportunity to call the author out.
> The good news is that I don’t think that the illiberalism of identity politics will endure much longer. Especially when it comes to the literal policing of humour - and cancellation of comedians for telling the wrong kinds of jokes.
I think it’s still his point.
> Much as I’d like to, I can’t just blame the puritans if my old jokes don’t work any more. Nor can I claim that the Crap Towns books were an unqualified success
[...]
> before closing, I should admit that there is a more straightforward answer to the question of whether you can still get away with doing something like Crap Towns.
> That answer is: yes. There’s a website (I won’t link to it) that has kept on running a survey of the worst places in the UK for years and years- and, honestly, when I look at it, I hate it. Partly because I feel like they’re ripping off my project, but mainly because when I read the comments on there about incels and chavs and carbuncles and brutalism it all just seems grubby. Maybe even cruel.
> I could argue that I don’t like this website because their approach and criteria are different to mine - and I hope there would be some truth in that. But I also know that I now also just react against the whole thing. It’s been done. It’s grown stale. It doesn’t fit - especially since so much has changed around it. In short, the world has moved on. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing?
So it's something deeper than the usual “political correctness” debate: the question really is, what is it about the world today that trumps the hallowed British traditions of celebrating failure, of moaning, of affectionate self-mockery? Why isn't the joke funny any more, or why doesn't the mocking seem affectionate?
(He points at the malaise that exists today—it was only funny when there was some hope—but I'm not sure that's the only answer…)
Sensibilities change. The sense of what is and isn’t punching down changes. Even the appetite for punching down changes.
People who whine about “PC” always pretend like it’s the death of comedy or speech or whatever, and yet… there are younger people building great careers!
And yes, there is a real worrying erosion of free speech - but 98% these people could keep saying exactly what they’ve been saying - they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to.
Yes, and the way it changes tells us something about our society, which I believe this article is trying to address.
If people are literally calling the police, they aren't changing, they are being suppressed/punished.
> they’re just not getting the laughs they think they’re entitled to
Why are the comedians 'entitled' rather than the people who go to their show and complain?
Don't rephrase others' sentiments to suit your own narrative. Soothsayers are bullshitters.
When comedians complain about political correctness, there is no alternate meaning. They are upset that they can't tell the same jokes they told 20 years ago, to the same audiences from 20 years ago that continue to enjoy them, because external forces mob, heckle, and harass them so they cannot serve their customers...
...which conveniently provides opportunities for those younger people to "build great careers," by eliminating all legacy competition.
In any other context it'd be driving the local kebab shop owner out of town because someone with influence wants to open a salad bar in its place.
It's mob rule, not "social justice."
No you haven't, and it seems you don't care to.
Unless there's some kind of threat of physical force involved it's not. It's just a critical mass of people having opinions you don't like and voicing those opinions.
If the market of ideas decides your ideas are not valuable anymore for whatever reason you're going to suffer what scarcity feels like.
Last time I checked the mob called for these people lives to be destroyed by asking for them to lose all possibility of ever having a job and threatening anyone who would employ them or support them of dire repercussions while slapping themselves in the back for what a positive impact they made.
So yes, it’s very much about threat of violence.
describes something non violent
This is violence!
Taken in the fullness of its meaning, it very much shows that peoples positions and sentiments have changed.
I don’t know why the author included that in the article when the distaste for self-loathing humour can have completely different causes. And also can be quite good reasons, like you cannot really do anything against those, not against the bad environment into which you’re born, and also not against being gay. But that would be against the fabricated outrage, which is enjoyed by many. Probably even by the author.
Just to mention one example that these can have reasons not suggested by disinformation (because for example, it would be against their sources): in Hungary, joking about corruption is dead. Completely. The reason is twofold: Orban stole about 30% of the whole economy in the past 15 years, and that doesn’t include the stolen cash. Also people who care, couldn’t do anything, even when some of us tried. It’s like being gay (in this context), it’s totally out of your control, and there is no chance to change it in any way. Now that I moved to somewhere with healthier democracy, I’m quite happy that I see jokes about corruption again.
Social media gives the possibility of instant reply, whereas if you publish a book in 2003 called 'crap towns' how can the so-called chavs answer back? Publish their own book? Write to the local paper?
So its a side effect of how we can all hear each other better now (for better or for worse)
I'll add that the decade-long austerity measures let people know that it's actual class warfare, and it's no longer a laughing matter as it was in 2003 when it seemed fixable. Now it's clear the people in charge are not interested in fixing anything. A joke about someone's health situation is received better if the condition is treatable, but less so of they are terminal.
The competing website they don't want to name has Internet Archive pages dating back to 2004.
It's transgressive content worked because it was satirizing "wholesome" Wild West shows, holding up a funhouse mirror to their less-obvious absurdities and racist aspects. It was so successful, its targets don't exist anymore.
I will, it's ChavTowns.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061013053524/http://www.chavto...
Still running as https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/
Also the owner is giving up on it as of the start of this year -- mainly because nobody visits the site; churnalists just freeboot it and they rank higher on google. https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/top-10-worst-places-to-live-in-e...
> Ricky Gervais encapsulated its brutalist new town grim with ‘The Office’ before giving up and writing lame punching-down anti-woke “gags” for the educationally subnormal
That's a very strange reading on Gervais' post-The Office career. After The Office he did things like Extras, a sitcom about extras on TV and film sets, Derek, an emotional series about a well-meaning care worker who thinks it's more important to be kind than popular, and After Life, a series about a man who loses his wife young and how he deals with grief.
I know there is the odd biblical literalist in power in the US, but have never come across one in the UK. The biggest group of Christians in the UK are Anglicans (who are not usually biblical literalists, although there are evangelical groups within it that might be) and Catholics (church firmly against Biblical literalism, although there might be odd individuals).
I think the reason atheists argue with Bibilical literalists is that its easy. It is somehting of a straw man: you pick a sub-group that is easy to debunk/discredit and then discredit the whole group by association. This has always been a problem: St Augustine talked about the damage done by people who interpreted the scriptures as contradicting what is known to be true in the 4th century.
Plus, there's no harm in making a career (or a joke) out of being vaguely anti-nonsense.
Nowadays not so much.
I don't think he is a lapsed Christian though?
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
John Betjeman (1906 - 1984)
> and run-down decaying towns in the whole country
You cannot simultaneously have landlords living in Spain and well maintained local housing. Both are expensive. Pick only one. There exists a sweet spot when people are desperate enough to live in a place and pay every rent for any housing, but the sugar coating has washed off.
PS. How could they miss Bedford in the ranking?!
Once the big news networks (DELFI.lt, 15min.lt, lrytas.lt, alfa.lt and few others) bought out the largest blogs and connected them to their own domains, there isn't much of an independent web left. Owners of the websites back then gladly sold out (and I would have done it too), because it seemed like a great idea to sell your work back in the 2008-ish for real profit, an unique chance (imagine monetising your content when you have only 3 mil. theoretical consumers! There isn't much lithuanian speakers) and especially during the economic crisis.
Then the other blogs were attached to the networks by the generous offers of "let us publish and we will give backlinks, maybe" + "we will just copy it because we know that you won't bother taking us to court, it's too small of a country, you know".
So now whatever you google, you get mostly these results: 7 big network sites and subsites, 2 auto-translated AI slop generated by someone in other side of the planet, 0.9 of business pages and 0.1 something actually personal.
No wonder that almost all content creators moved to social networks by the 2015-ish. They still are there.
I wonder what will change this. A web apocalypse? Mass demand of in-person, non-online "content"? I wonder...
Plenty of people are linking their own websites on HN, BTW, so it might not necessarily need to be one or the other.
To counter those depressing places, these towns and villages seem lovely:
https://www.thetimes.com/best-places-to-live/location-guide/...
There we go. People shift from being the out-group to being more sympathetic and unfortunate, and humour that targeted them moves into being punching down. I was shocked at how less funny Bill Hicks feels 20 years on, because now it just sounds like he's being an asshole about people who are struggling.
https://arena.org.au/stay-in-your-lane-the-oxymoron-of-authe...
With quotes (re cultural appropriation) like “the ultimate endpoint of keeping our mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction… All that’s left is memoir”
We’ve been suffering under the yoke of the intellectualization of deliberalization, censorship and oppression of ideas via our leading thinkers, institutions and platforms who have been acting out of fear. Fear of being strung up on the town square and fear that not signaling support for what has been happening signals disapproval.
What I find infuriating is that our youth have been driving this conformist, enforcement, rule making and rule following mentality and trend. Our youth should be questioning the rules, not forming up as a conformist jack booted militia and persecuting those who don’t follow the rules. History has shown that the latter ends in tears.
We saw this in Germany in the 30s, in China in the 60s and 70s where the red guards in the cultural revolution were mostly teens, under the Khmer Rouge in the 70s where kids were police, and with the Young Pioneers and Komsomol in the early and mid 20th century Soviet Union.
When youth stop questioning and start enforcing, it often marks the end of a healthy society and the beginning of something much darker.
So, wrongthink. This is my point. And it’s incredible how the history of passing legislation to censor being ultimately used by the opposition just keeps on repeating.
Now only losers are broke and live in crap towns, and winners drive expensive cars. With this idea in mind, calling it crap towns becomes an attack on the people, rather then the town itself.
This idea is thoroughly explored in Alain de Botton's "Status Anxiety"
Individualism, atomisation and other Randian bullshit.
I remember a few years ago a politician was vilified for suggesting there wasn't much you could do about the derelict seaside towns. I have a feeling that what he said was probably quite close to the truth.
The 1990s/2000s felt like "you make your own luck", but since I got out of college, it seems the 90% luck / 10% effort idea is the mainstream (including "who you know is more important than what you know"). Maybe it is just me growing up, or maybe it's the proliferation of access to data due to the internet, such as opportunityatlas.org
I wonder if the increased acceptance of this fact can cause a type of societal malaise.
Okay then!
Be honest with yourself, O Reader!
Are you sure he's not writing a satire of the same piece you've seen written every year since 1990, just with a shifting name for it?
He is a comedian after all...
Are you sure he's serious?
Crap Governments Crap Businesses Crap Websites Crap Engineers Crap Media....
I couldn't help but keep thinking about this Wittgenstein quote as I read this. I find it harder to say exactly why. Obviously, we felt differently in the past. Not my past, of course: I was a child, barely able to integrate by parts or fold a shirt correctly.
There is another possibility. The usual complaint is that oversensitivity has constrained humor. The usual retort is that what we did before was harmful and we're better off not doing it. But the problem with logical-seeming dilemmas is that existential propositions can only seem logical. The world, unlike logic, is malleable. Perhaps the jokes really are worse today than they were in the past?
Twenty years ago, our crap towns were something we experienced with the other townsfolk first and foremost, and only to a lesser degree did we bear the weight of the outside world's eyes upon us. Today it is not like this. Communication across great distances has gone from difficult to convenient to pervasive and unavoidable.
Locality has frayed in more domains than the spatial. Recently /r/MedicalPhysics had a spat with /r/sysadmin about hospital IT policies. Such a civil war would have been unthinkable in the 2000s. Humans used to spend much more time socializing with their friends or at least comrades-in-something than with almost complete strangers. Our egos are exposed to the elements in a new and phase-changing way.
I think that the social fabric has already begun to fight this trend from the bottom up. At the risk of sounding like an advertisement, Discord has made non-discoverability its greatest feature. The gladiatorial aspect of modern discourse has never sat well with me. I don't want to have a conversation for the audience. But here I am. Please clap.
The issue is not so much discoverability as scale (as you hinted at), as well as some social media aspects.
PhpBB-style forums are both discoverable, rarely grow large enough to become toxic, can be 'owned', and the exit option is much more viable.
A link to an American politician, of course.
Today, I think it's clear who would be being laughed at by whom. The fates of places have so radically diverged that we no longer have a sense of collective identity. All of the places listed in Crap Towns are now unrecognisable, for better or worse. Those familiar shops are now gone; in some places they have been replaced by artisan bakeries and pop-up boutiques, while in others they have been replaced by charity shops or nothing at all. Half the leisure centres have shut and we all know which half.
The upper middle class might have become more humourless and puritanical, but I think that's a subconscious self-defence mechanism, a manifestation of noblesse oblige without real obligation. The working class are too angry to laugh and certainly aren't willing to be laughed at. We all know that we're teetering on the brink of a populist wave, but no-one in a position of power seems willing or able to do anything about it.
A few decades of compounding inequality transforms what used to be good natured ribbing amongst chums into bullying.
14 years of Conservative government made this country more equal, not less, because they flattened the income distribution by making everybody poorer.
The big pattern among rich people in the UK nowadays is not that they're getting richer, it's that they're leaving.
If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving, then you have no idea about the reality of living in the UK. Visiting some of the towns in this book would be a starting point.
Is that supposed to prove me wrong? I said that everybody is getting poorer.
> Wealth inequality is through the roof.
Wealth inequality, while high, is still roughly where it was in 2007. (Source: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/)
> If you think the problem with the UK is that rich people are leaving
I said it's a problem, not the problem. And it's not just the ultra-rich who are leaving, but vast swathes of the middle classes. Many poor people would leave too if they had the means.
You and the other replier seem to think I'm defending the status quo. How on earth did I imply that? You think I think it's a good thing for the entire country to get poorer?
This is not whats represented in the source you cited?
In the graph titled "Top 10% and Bottom 50% Wealth Shares in The UK 1900-2020" you can clearly see the wealth owned by the top 10% increased from 54.4% in 2007 to 57% in 2020 and likely even higher now 5 years later.
In fact, according to that chart wealth inequality today is much lower than it was in the 1970s, although it increased throughout the 1990s.
The same link shows that the UK has unremarkable wealth inequality by the standards of developed countries: we're bang in the middle of the OECD, with lower levels of wealth inequality than Sweden, Denmark, Finland or Norway. (That's funny, I thought the Nordics were egalitarian utopias?)
I'm not saying that wealth inequality is low, or that it's not a problem. I'm merely responding to the claim that "wealth inequality is through the roof", which I take to mean that wealth inequality has increased substantially in recent years. As far as I can tell that's not true.
Personally I think we need more economic growth, not more taxes. We already have the highest taxes since WWII, soon to be the highest taxes in the entire history of the UK, and all it's doing is strangling the economy and making productive people flee.
Ultimately though, tax on income should be lowered and tax on property should be proportionately increased, given that property is the source of much wealth and is very difficult to hide or move.
I think this is inherently going to be a poor way to get an accurate representation of wealth inequality, because if you ask a bunch of really wealthy people worth $100mm+ how much money and assets they have, and especailly when these are very privacy focused people, they're going to either:
1. decline to respond in any way
2. if they do respond, they are very likely to misrepresent and downplay their wealth
3. very likely to have wealth that isn't UK based and therefore wouldn't disclose it to anyone for any reason
4. have a lot of very valuable things, like owning a private businesses, that may not necessarily have a price tag attached to them, and so therefore hard to represent when asked "how much money do you have?"
even though reports throughout years would always have this same issue, i think the problem is that as wealth for the 0.1% rises, that rise is not going to get well represented or collected
Well there’s the weather I guess.
The rich people living here for the last 40 years all leaving does not bother most people. In fact, it's cause for celebration. They're leeches who don't pay tax on their piles of cash held in off-shore accounts - they just drive up the price of everything, particularly property. Meanwhile there are plenty of people trying to get here from the US to replace them who understand the purpose of capital is to put it to work and create jobs, not stare at it on a screen.
Your kind of thinking is not unusual within centre right politics, but it's also why nationalist populism is a credible threat. Farage is currently favourite with most bookmakers to be next PM because of the kind of defence of Tory policy you're making. Please think on that.
The other major change is the continual divergence of wealth.
If you are a 20 year old living near London you can get a crap paying junior job and live rent free for 5 years with parents while you save a 100k deposit (which using things like LISAs).
By the time you’re in your early 30s you have a decent paying job, have met a partner with a similar income, and can buy a house and repeat the cycle.
If you don’t you get the same job but have to pay rent to someone else’s parents, and you never get that deposit, so you’re trapped in the rent cycle.
Not to mention the 60% effective marginal rate between £100k and £125k - 69% if you have student debt, oh and that's not even counting employee's NICs.
And don't get me started on the stealth tax that is employer's NICs. (Those were just increased even further, and the morons are all defending it by pretending it doesn't come from wages... where exactly do they think the employer gets the money from?)
Plus all the insane traps where earning extra money can actually reduce your net income. E.g. there are situations in which increasing your salary by £1 can leave you thousands of pounds poorer because certain benefits are withdrawn with a cliff.
What's the point in working harder? You'd think that with such eye-wateringly high levels of taxation, we'd at least have something to show for it in the public sector, but... okay, I need to stop writing now for the sake of my blood pressure.
Kids who’s parents who are well off but wouldn’t pay for college is an entire cohort who are functionally locked out of the housing market. For most of my generation, there is little opportunity, only gatekeeping.
That can’t be a particularly large set. Parents well off is already a small minority case and only a minority of that small minority won’t give support to their kids.
For people in that tiny sliver, I’m sure it feels bad but it doesn’t seem like a solution that works for other “starting from zero” young adults would need changes to also work for this set.
If you want to put multiple children through uni then it can get very burdensome.
One of many ways in which our system is regressive.
Today the minimum loan needs a £250 a month top up to pay for the same accommodation.
The only benefit is that you don’t have to pay for tuition fees until you’re earning a really good wage - rather than having to work all summer to pay for them.
In my case, immigrant parents just started earning a little money around the time I go to college, which means I don't qualify for any assistance, parents don't have enough money to pay for my college, nor would I want them to as it would hurt their ability to support my grandparents and my younger sister, so I am taking out loans at full price.
Using income as a proxy for wealth has screwed the middle/upper middle for such a long time, and the actually rich love it (can throw in the nonsense that is earned income taxes here).
In their mind, they made it on their own, and their entire parenting strategy was to teach the lessons of how they made it to their kids.
This is incredibly common with conservatives.
Do to self selection and sorting, you could have a situation where individual level inequality is unchanged but the geographical disparities change
We’re entering into a populist phase because the managerial class is incapable of addressing the problems experienced by most people — so they’re going to try dismantling the current elite systems and rebuilding them. To say that the problem is elites inability to suppress populism is to miss that the elites own chronic failures is what caused the populist surge.
Similar to populist waves circa 1900, where aristocratic systems were replaced with managerialism via populist revolts. Now, managerialism has failed so we’re again seeing the stirrings of change. At a broad scale, communism, fascism, and progressivism were all different technocratic managerial solutions to the problems and excesses of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
I think it’ll be interesting to see what comes next.
There is very strong evidence that this will not be the case by the time this wave you have imagined gets really rolling.
I hope it does not happen for decades yet, because frankly: I cannot see the working class (of which I am part of) win that conflict.
I’d argue that your perspective means that the time to revolt is now (ie, next few years) — while the technical and social systems are in mutual flux and before a new regime solidifies. A regime that might be more autocratic totalitarian in nature (as you suggest will be the case).
People will reasonably come to different conclusions.
I think between the rise of China, America's reaction to it, and the general shift in economic power to Asia from the west, and the lack of trust in government in the west, things will change.
I think it’s worth putting into context that the economy was doing great in the era this book was first published and huge progress was being made with things like homelessness, inequality, and poverty. It felt like the country had turned a corner from the lows of the 80s.
Since then, we’ve had the global financial crisis, local councils being bankrupted, and a huge rise in homelessness and inequality. The rich have more and the poor have less.
If you published that book today, the contents might be the same, but the story it tells would be quite different.
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed/
What has actually changed? A whole bunch of other economic malaise, but also perceptions, amplified to your personal taste by social media.
My point is: the Gini coefficient might indicate what your country's income distribution looks like, it however does not tell anything about actual life conditions.
Looking at housing costs, life expectancy, food insecurity or poverty rates do a much better job at capturing this.
Switzerland has 98 days of maternity leave,
Afghanistan has 90(+15) days of maternity leave
(Wikipedia even puts it at #1 worldwide with two years,
but that may be incorrect?).
In Switzerland, women have been able to vote since 1971.
In Afghanistan, women have been able to vote since 1919
(but interrupted during the *previous* Taliban regime).https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/
“for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%.”
“If the wealth of the super rich continues to grow at the rate it has been, by 2035, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than the whole UK GDP.”
Etc.
Very little change in U.K. over 20 years
Thank God we have this one number from some Credit Suisse marketing material to invalidate all of that.
The curve can be skewed without the Gini number changing significantly if, say, the bottom 99% became increasingly more equal in income/wealth by becoming poorer overall, transferring income/wealth to the upper 1%.
We’re up in arms when people block roads to highlight problems with climate change, but when millionaires get worried they’ll have less of a loophole with tax, we’re supporting it in droves.
Those things are measured in different units, which automatically throws doubt on the ability of the source to be statistically rigorous in any other way.
If you're being deliberately stupid you could pretend it's a comparison between pounds and pounds per year, but everyone who is at least minimally literate in the subject understands that "GDP" here means "the amount of value produced in a year".
By all means tax them til their eyes bleed, but it'll mostly just make people feel better rather than being a useful contribution to public finances.
50 families controlling half the country's wealth is a bit of a stretch. The top 50 individuals have an average net worth of maybe $4-5Bn, giving a total wealth of $250Bn. Half the country's _land_ seems more likely?
Meanwhile there are literally millions of £1M+ houses owned by relatively ordinary people, millions of Boomers and some older GenX with at least £0.5m in their pension funds, and so on.
Land tax of 0.1% would be a good thing, but it'd be equivalent to putting about a third on council tax (£1k/year on a £1m home, currently council tax is about £3k in that bracket I think?). A useful step certainly but not revolutionary.
But anyway, gini is a coarse measure. Look at the chart below that, showing income percentages going steadily upwards for the top 10 and 1%.
Most worryingly, look at the decline of the middle 40%. A healthy middle class keeps countries stable. You need a good chunk of society who feel like the system works for them.
And it’s not just perceptions, it’s fundamental stuff. A teacher could afford a house in the 90s; they can’t now. For all the boomers bang on about mobile phones and flat screen TVs, in the end those are luxuries compared to clean, secure accommodation. The days of getting a mortgage on one income, or having access to nice council housing are gone.
The bottom 50% is unchanged in aggregate , but there will be groups within in that have done a lot worse.
I would also guess (I cannot find numbers) that the proportion of income that is spent on essentials has risen.
This is a structural change. We now have at least one, and perhaps two, generations of people who can't really alter their economic situation through hard work. That's the classic recipe for populism to thrive.
[1] https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/individual/insights/what-...
I will bash Maggie all day, for her refusal to effectively manage industrial decline in Britain, for her boneheaded belief that a top-ranking economy could exist solely on services, and, most of all, for her idiotic squandering of our North Sea oil wealth. But, Right to Buy was a rare hit for me. I see it as having been a forward-looking policy which aimed to reward people for work -- play the game, and you too can have a tangible slice of society in the form of your own home to possess and care for as you wish. The problem is that we didn't replace the social housing lost to RtB.
We didn't fail that - Councils wanted to build more social housing with RtB and Thatcher viciously destroyed those programs. She created RtB not because it was a "forward-looking policy aimed to reward people for work" but because she hated the social security apparatus and wanted to destroy it. And she was never covert nor apologetic about it.
The people don’t want housing built near them and the politicians listened. Lower supply than demand for decades leads to steadily rising prices. If you want to see the alternative look to Tokyo, Austin or Seattle. Build so much housing that the returns on investment are low and people can afford housing.
I think it's mainly a symptom of the unusualy low interest rates over the last 20 years: people have invested in residential property not because they particularly want to be landlords, but because it's perceived as the easiest way to get a better return on your money than a savings account that pays near zero interest.
I know of more than one person who's now looking to sell their rental property because they found out the hard way that "landlord" is actually a job title, not just the name of their savings account, that properties need to be maintained and that letting agents will find a way to swallow the vast majority of any profits.
I also know more than one person living in rented accommodation with appalling maintenance lapses. One had a shoddy roof repair last year which left the gutter missing. When the next rainstorm caused water to cascade down the outside wall and flow in above the back door, the letting agent had the nerve to shrug and say "old properties do that".
Another had a rotten wooden lintel above a street door scraped out, filled with expanding foam and painted over.
I'm just repeating stuff I've heard. A lot of it feels like unintended consequences.
The NIMBYism part seems pretty clear.
If others have ideas, sources, rebuttals, please share.
- artificially low interest rates (since 1990, and esp. since 2007)
- exemption from capital gains tax for primary residence, which is the main reason why property is used as a pension scheme
- mortgage interest tax relief which makes debt tax efficient; phased out in the UK, but still available in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deducti...
I think that it's important to note that the UK, Ireland and California have similarly destructive planning processes which end up ensuring that only property with high margins gets built.
This is especially true in formerly undesirable areas of London (e.g. Hackney, #10 on the 2003 list) and towns within commuting distance of London (e.g. Hythe, #3).
Presumably this is due to the gradual shift to a London-centric services economy as well as the increasingly ludicrous price of houses in Central London.
The value of grants paid from central government to local government have fallen by over 80%. In 2005, the poorest local authorities received most of their funding from central government; today, they're dependent on council tax and business rates for the vast majority of their income. During that time, demand for social care has vastly increased, disproportionately so in the poorest local authorities, eating away at the already shrinking resources of local authorities.
The result of those cuts have been drastic for people living in poorer communities, particularly the poorest members of those communities. They quite justifiably feel abandoned by society. Youth clubs and children's centres, social work, homelessness provision, subsidised bus routes, parks and libraries have all been cut to the bone. None of that is captured in the Gini coefficient, but it's felt acutely by the people who rely on those services.
The wealthy are largely unaffected by this, because they live in local authorities that were never particularly reliant on central government funding and because they never really relied on council services anyway. For the very poorest, the impact of austerity is often dominated by one big failure of provision - being stuck in unsuitable temporary accommodation for months or years because there's no social housing available, being denied support for a disabled child etc. For the majority, it's just a slow but pervasive erosion of their quality of life - their kids have nowhere to go after school, their street is full of potholes, the bus they take into town has been cut from four an hour to one an hour, their back alley is full of rubbish because the council can't afford to deal with fly-tipping.
https://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/NEF_Local_Government_...
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/cbrwp51...
Is borrowing money with appreciating assets as collateral treated as income for purposes of thsese calculations?
Leaving a badly depleted public sphere.
In summary, it goes up and down a lot, is counted in different ways, was (counted to be) far lower in 2010 (two years after the financial crisis?), but pretty much the same as now in 1998, although the kind of people who have an interest in saying "homelessness has hit record levels" are saying that homelessness has hit record levels.
This makes me nostalgic for 1991 when the Big Issue was first published, and there were songs like Gypsy Woman by Crystal Waters and Walking Down Madison by Kirsty MacColl.
Edit: was your "80s" a typo for "90s" perhaps?
One problem may be that the UK is very London-centric in a way that is markably different from France being Paris-centric.
Just my perception (and I know London much better than Paris) is that in France, if you are not in Paris you are seen as "living in the 'province'", but politicians still fight for farmers there etc. In contrast, in the UK, on the surface there is the appearance that yes, London is the capital and more important, but that people are trying to do initiatives like moving part of the BBC to Glasgow and Manchester - to decentralize a bit.
Yet the wealth concentrated in Greater London and its commutable satellites - as contrasted with the rest of the country - is many orders of magnitude bigger, also due to the financial industry there.
If you live in Knightsbridge and commute to your trader job in Canary Wharf you will never see how derelict Portsmouth or Blackpool really are (the only time I went to Portsmouth, I recall some people sitting in the street with nothing to do).
It's funny you should talk about farmers. Yes, politicians say they'll move mountains for them. Yet, in practice, farmers are still barely making ends meet. And we also have the EU on top, which is run by bureaucrats even more removed from the actual "bas peuple". Just look at the whole situation with the Mercosur treaty.
Politicians keep yapping about how ICE cars are the devil and should be banned. After all, you can take a bike or ride the metro, right? It's not like anybody lives outside Paris or its close "satellites". It's very easy when you don't even have an idea how much a ticket costs, since you're carted around by police escort on the people's dime.
We've also had a push for "decentralization", with all kinds of hilariously bad results.
I don't know about Portsmouth nor Blackpool, but I ride around France a fair bit, and outside the biggest cities, many small towns have empty, run-down centers, with mayors fighting to get stores and whatnot back. But people simply move out for lack of jobs.
>One in five civil servants are based in London (20.1%), down from 20.7% in 2022.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-service-stati...
Not that the Knightsbridge set ever do.
Heck, even from Knightsbridge itself you don't have to go that far. North End Road is what, two, three miles?
I don't know of anywhere in London that has quite the profound sense of hopelessness you find in Blackpool, but a lot of it's really not great.
Charity shops, vape shops (used for money laundering), Turkish Barbers (used for money laundering), Automated Laundrettes (used for money laundering), Car Washes (used for money laundering), Phone shops (used for money laundering), Kebab shops (used for money laundering)
This is the UK's entire economy now - extracting the wealth of the people who work in the UK and moving it to foreign owners.
London looks rich because some of the money sticks to the sides while it's passing through, but it's still being siphoned from the provinces through the City and out - to tax havens, foreign mafias, foreign aristocrats, and giant foreign corporations.
It's important the population isn't allowed to understand that the UK is a colonised country. So there's a huge media machine making sure the peasants blame "immigrants" for small-scale criminality, and poor people for being feckless and unproductive. It's useful to make sure everyone keeps fighting about racism/immigration and gender issues to keep them from looking at structural economics and the destruction of democracy.
This, I believe, is because the problem is psychological more than political: social division and alienation.
Of course, an increase in economic prosperity will lessen populism.
But if people continue to be alienated then they will be drawn to populists offering collective causes against perceived wrongdoers.
The large majority of online activities increase social alienation and social division.
Local, apolitical activities that breed cohension rather than division will decrease the psychological benefits that populism offers the alienated. I see no other solution.
That was half a decade ago.
The interim has consisted of a corrupt centrist presidential administration that spent most of its time denying that things are getting worse ("It's not a recession"; "We didn't fumble the Afghanistan draw-down"; "Those weren't significant bank failures"; "That's not a genocide"), followed by a corrupt fascist admin that is openly dedicated to making things worse.
All the while, the intellectuals who understand what is happening - not just what will happen, what is happening - have been begging anyone who will listen to take the situation seriously - to understand that their attempted conservation of the previous normal is actually vascillation, while the ground falls out from under us. But my property values! But my American dream! But my rules-based order! They're already dead. And we can't start rebuilding until people with money and influence face it.
Still, GP accurately describes much of the American East, Midwest, and South. Likewise, I would have to /s if I were to say that the British upper class were known for their down-to-Earth character. No one who is "posh" has ever been described as out-of-touch or "living in a bubble", particularly on the development of populist issues, after all. (/s)
Isn't it to be expected that the majority of X are average (mediocre)? I mean, you could have a statistically skewed distribution, but would that be very desirable?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grooming-gang-victim-i...
If the English were doing this to Pakistanis or Nigerians in their own countries you'd be protesting for their deportation and removal.
Despite the tongue-in-a-cheek mood it's a great piece of nostalgia trip spiced with some interesting local history lessons.
He also have an automotive youtube channel dedicated to popular old cars and he loves to film them in these obscure and sordid locations mentioned in the book.
EDIT: fun note - when MS released their first digital encyclopedia in Elbonia, somewhere in mid 90's, the Elbonia entry, apart from having accurate information about the country and up to date statistics had an illustration image subtitled "Elbonians in front of typical dwelling" depicting something like this: https://strojeludowe.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/1.3-600x...
[1] https://paskudnik.com/strona-glowna/6--ebook-paskudnik-warsz...
Understandably the humor of the inexperienced 20-something will differ from that of the 40+ year-old. The simple and absolute world that we believe to see and understand in our younger years tends to vanish from our grasp as we become older and attain the wisdom of experience. Perhaps the author's belief that "it has been done already" reflects some of that wisdom, and just maybe those of a certain age at the time of the publishing of "Crap Towns" felt exactly the same way about his book. It seems, after all, that every generation believes that it is the first to do or discover a thing without considering that humans have been doing human things for an awfully long time and that the observation "there is nothing new under the sun" has some merit.
This has literally always been the case. The topics have shifted, and some other details have changed, but in essence it's no difference. Try publishing a humorist book about, say, sex or religion in the 50s. Or the world wars, or maybe something that features gay characters. Or civil rights-type stuff (in US).
This kind of humor still exists and I think it’s still most popular with young people. I followed an Instagram account in Chicago that mocks local bars and the people who go to them, but they’re all bars for people in their 20s, so I’ve rarely heard of them and don’t fully get the descriptions. There’s also that trend of “cynical maps” (Google it) of city neighborhoods, country regions, etc that peaked a few years ago and still circulates.
I don’t see this selling as a book now, but I also don’t see humorous coffee table books in general as a category the way they were 25 years ago?
It's whether you're punching up or punching down.
If the purpose of Crap Towns is to punch up, speak to power, to point out the failures of Thatcherism, decreased social mobility through a perptuation of failing center-right politics thanks to an overly-powerful media and political class that is divorced from reality, the absurd dominance of PPE graduates within policy making, and on, and on, on... well, it's great satire.
If it's just to point at working class people and go "haha, their streets are dirty and they eat bad food", well... you're punching down, and it's rare that can work as comedy. It's just mean bullying.
So yes, you can write Crap Towns today, but it lands better if you draw the line from Thatcher through Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer, and their acolytes - the PPE mafia on both sides of the House, and point out how their crappy politics has caused all this, not their victims.
Funnier comedy is "look at us, hahaha!"
Note that punching up is the same mechanism of humour as punching down. "look at people who are not like us, ha ha ha"
I always found the funnier things were not about punching up or down but were applicable to anyone. Restricting comedy to only be about punching up turns it into a political tool and not an art form that makes us feel better. Comedy that is only allowed if it sends a political message is firstly propaganda and then humour. It's why most modern comedy elicits a smile at best and no belly laughs any more. It can still be amusing but it has no universality.
The best comedy has truth about ourselves in it. Psychologically "punching up" is a rejection of these things in ourselves. Ideologically, "punching up" is a tactic reinforcing group identity coherence.
I disagree with the idea that one is "OK" and the other is "bad", "wrong" or, even worse, "problematic" (i.e., the bien-pensant's own "blasphemous"). It just makes one an eternal sacred cow, and the other the eternal punching bag, no matter either's virtues or vices.
And this, in fact, has already been the case for a long time. In the US, producer Dick Wolf's five Law & Order TV shows (and, now, his three Chicago shows) taught us over 30 years that the "wealthy CEO" or "high-powered corporate lawyer" is always guilty, and the large companies they own/work for are just as crooked. The only upscale demographic that is never the criminal is, strangely enough, the famous TV-show producer.
I’m not sure how anyone could have read it and not understood it was a joke. At the same time, I do think that he’s right that it wouldn’t get published today, not because the content wasn’t true, but people are much more quick to take offense over things like this.
Perhaps things on the isles have turned to shite over time, and the pride has dwindled?
[1] maybe British is the wrong word since the Scots and Irish do similar. I'm from the ex-colonies so the correct words for UK country and peoples are confusing to me.
---
I have hope that we might see that laughing at our neighbours for their political views might be seen as inappropriate.
I think he's wrong to say you couldn't publish it now. I think he is right it would be misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Bill Bryson and Paul Thoroux wrote extensively of how shit English towns can be in winter after 4pm when the shops are shut and the pub isn't open.
This bit made me laugh.
I read the original book when it came out and it was funny and - in some ways - true. I was born and bought up in the town ranked #4 in the original list (Hythe), but when I read it I was living in Hackney (#10 on the list). So I could shove the book in the faces of my friends and colleagues and say: look at me! I've moved up in the world!
The reason I laughed is because around the time of publication (2003?) I was working in the Government's Social Exclusion Unit. Prior to that I had spent time in the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit; later on I'd go on to work for the Lyons Inquiry. Part of my work included meeting people, and one thing I took away from those meetings would be how incredibly proud people could be about their neighbourhoods and towns: however deeply sunk into poverty the area was, they still cherished the place. The other thing I learned was, more often than not, those people often had good ideas about how to fix some of the issues - local solutions for local problems. All they needed was a little help and support from authorities to get those solutions off the ground.
So when the author claims that "governments" didn't read the book - some of us did. We enjoyed it, and we tried to do things to help people make their towns just a little bit less crap. Sadly it wasn't enough, but if people don't try then nothing will ever get fixed.
These days Hythe seems like a posh seaside town with a Waitrose, a nice canalside park, a cute steam railway, lots of boutiquey shops and cafes, etc.
I know a lot of places in the area (e.g. Folkestone, Margate, Whitstable) have all been heavily "gentrified" in the last few years, but I sort of assumed Hythe was always this way? Is that not the case?
And even allowing for a bit of gentrification, it seems wild in 2025 to select it for a "crap towns" award ahead of somewhere like Dover or New Romney.
As someone who grew up in Hythe in the 80s and 90s I'd point out that the Rotunda was a far cry from Vegas.
https://www.warrenpress.net/FolkestoneThenNow/The_Demolition...
This is an extremely high bar to hit in a county that also contains Ashford.
The government's main effort is to complicate or denounce the "obvious" solutions. It's why they put so little effort into devising the programs that actually get rolled out; instead they just copy them directly from some non-profit that the government has been indirectly and almost entirely financing, and is directed by The Honorable Lord or Lady Somebody's Cousin.
this is why we should cherish the [indie] web. we can still almost publish anything in incredible detail, keep it alive for a long time and not worry about being canceled.
plus i have low opinion of people that wont share a link they know is relevant to the topic.
They almost always say that and it’s almost never true.
I still think the idea of the book is funny. There's a certain art to taking something bad and hilariously describing its terribleness. For some reason this has always made me laugh, but honestly not everyone gets it, and this has always been the case.
This kind of book can only happen in a place and a community with enough confidence and stability to handle it. Of course you can "get away" with it today, it's easier than ever to publish just about anything - but humor has changed and I don't expect it to go "viral" the way it did. Not all old jokes age well and we have all made products that no longer fit after some time.
But the author, oh boy. Dear sir, your tongue in cheek picturebook from 20 years ago is not as important as you imagine.
The towns he calls crap are important to the people that live there. If they can take it so can he.
These are not antagonistic opinions.
Anyway, to respond to a couple of other things on here. I'm not really a comedian. Sorry! I do work in the publishing industry, so while I can't prove my ideas about publishers being nervous, I would hope I have a reasonable insight and instinct.
Thanks for writing the piece in the first place – I thought it was a wonderfully self-reflective and mature look back at the book, why you created it, and how times have changed.
As a mid 40something in the UK, formerly a creative writer, I have experienced exactly the same shifting attitudes as yourself. The primary reasons, as many have said, are probably the fact that people are more polarised in their thinking and less versed in nuance, but also that the whole of the UK has become a bit crap really, so the joke’s a bit too on the nail.
For what it’s worth, I thought the original idea for the book was pretty funny, and I still do even now! Keep doing what you do – create things from the heart, you can’t predict the future and you can’t cover for everyone’s reactions.
Great and thoughtful reflection piece too.
I’d like to add a few other ideas into the mix as for some reason I’m uncomfortable with the idea “you can’t say that anymore” that I wonder if it’s become a thought-terminating cliche.
Firstly, I suspect there’s always been two forms of puritanism: one with power and one without power. We didn’t historically hear much from puritans without power (famously some shipped off elsewhere and founded an empire). And the ones in power? Well a fish doesn’t know it’s wet…and all the other sods now have X accounts and podcasts!
The second point is to reflect on the fact that British humour is a curious thing. You noticed yourself that satire may have curiously little real world bite.
Maybe there’s been a category error: humour isn’t a mechanism for social change, it’s a coping strategy (I live in Luton, not Hull, TFFT). Or worse mechanism for social control. In my brief time in the Uk I noticed that “banter” often chipped at eccentricities or quirks, and served to bring people into line with group orthodoxy.
In short, and to mirror your uncertainties, I’m just not so sure it’s as clear cut that free speech has been curtailed somehow. Or that humour was ever about just having a laugh.
Its much more possible for people who are the target of jokes to reply now, compared to pre-social-media 2003
I say, try. Publish "Crap Towns, 20 Year Update" and ask what's changed? Revisit some of the original places, take some new photos. Plenty of scope to continue the humour, but also scope to hint at some wider reflections and continue the conversation. Having recognition of the first book also adds some authority to your commentary.
He says he won't, but he's also right that if it's funny, it works. Humour has a wonderful way of being able to say things you couldn't otherwise be able to communicate so effectively.
And a book that dares to go beyond the humour and reflect on 20 years of progress, would love to see it.
This is not a racism problem (the UK historically had a lot of well-integrated immigration in the previous centuries), but about minorities that don't want to be integrated and want to impose their culture (look at Sharia tribunals in the UK) - and criminals from poorer countries abusing the EU freedom to travel, the welfare state and how lax the police is.
The UK is not the only society to have been destroyed in the name of globalisation, but it's certainly a sad state of affair.
NOWHERE does the author, or the people commenting here, mention the reason why such a book might be deemed "offensive". Of course it's easy to repell the criticism if you don't address the reasons in it ! But to me, it feels weird and classist to make a book about shitty places in a country. Aren't they often simply... poor ? Is it OK to laugh at the lower class ? The "shavs" ?
I don't know much about the UK but I feel like such a book in France would cause an uproar. Of course concrete suburbs are ugly as fuck ! Of course small towns in northern France, hit by unemployment, are often quite sad and grey and depressing ! But is it okay for people who don't live there to publish a book saying "lol look at how these people live" ? Sounds like the definition of punching down, to me.
As a non British I though this was always a bit of dark British humour tradition.
See Black Adder, also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Heroic_Failures - which mentions towns like Keynes.
That's a weird thing to say in 2025 , considering what the US government is deporting people for having the wrong opinions domestically, and attempting to export the identity politics of the current administration via tarde deals with the UK. I suppose one might be blind to it because of their own political persuasion, suggesting that identity politics peaked in 2021 says more about the author's biases than the present reality.
You probably thought I was talking about El Salvador. I wasn't.
Is it not deportations when multiple university students have stripped of their visas without notice, by order of "Little Marco" and forced to leave the country?
> How would you react to 10 million tourists moving to your country, buying up all the food from your grocery stores, drinking and driving, stealing, dealing drugs,...
...ask the kingdom of Hawai'i
Not only can I not understand how you could imagine this to be the motive; I can't imagine how you even understand the term "identity politics" such that they could even in principle be "exported" in such a manner.
Are you suggesting, for example, that tariffs are somehow being differentially applied to different products from the same country, according to the ethnicity, gender, etc. of the manufacturers?
That's a fair question, and I suppose you may not consume British media and may be missing the necessary context.
> I can't imagine how you even understand the term "identity politics" such that they could even in principle be "exported" in such a manner.
I got you: the Trump admin wants to export its ideology on gender-identity by coercing the UK into changing its LGBTQ policies as a prerequisite to a trade deal with the US. The European right is not as crotchety about non-heteronomative relationship as the American right, and the Trump admin would like to change that. You may start here https://www.advocate.com/politics/us-uk-trade-deal-lgbtq https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/04/18/trump-uk-trade-lgbtq-...
This very much does not agree with my own observations over the years, but I suspect there is no productive discussion to be had here.
Why can't I say "This is a shit, because of this and this" ?
What sort of society have we become that we cannot write facts like that any more ?
Political correctness is about cleanly dividing ideas into ones obviously meant to hurt and ones obviously meant to be harmless. It is impossible to even come close to succeeding at this, but it is still worth trying.
That's usually how it goes with personal scale self-deprecating humor too. It was instrumental to my own misery, and I didn't quite notice this until I've let go of it for a while.
Another thing to ponder is the second hand effects. For the one making the joke it's a very different headspace to someone who sees it from the outside, and internalizes it as some sort of style. I'm fairly sure this kind of "saying a body, hearing a skeleton" game is how the author got to the point of seeing that site carrying the torch, but not really appreciating what he sees there. It's a kind of effect people making humorous content always seem to learn the hard way, like it was the case for e.g. idubbz, and countless others. Or like weakly racist jokes are to any odd fellow European.
Not to pass judgement though, I can see how overcorrections and the "puritanism" are definitely not any good either. But yeah, that's how these things tend to go.
I'd be vary of the author really hopping on that "they're cancelling us" bus. If he doesn't appreciate what he sees on that site, he's in for a world of hurt when he realizes where people who constantly play around with this topic right now will get him to. This is all a setup to the next chapter, where humorists will actually get unfairly censored, but then they won't be able to properly reach audiences with it anymore, as the memetic background for that has been appropriated and spent by then, by those actually malicious, a long time ago.
Even though it was already declining (economically replaced with healthcare, a fucking sign) it had nature and woods.
That was magical.
Anyways, I'd like to talk about bat guano.
I'd love to have a local nature conservancy or non-profit do a kids educational showing. Wouldn't that be fun? Just a deep dive into how much you can still learn, whether you're old or young. That even with limits, we can still inspire joy through gross natural things.
Kids love gross shit.
There are so many models you could experiment with. Traveling nature discovery labs... Art-train things. Robotic teleprescence to let kids take apart their own guano pile...
I'm obviously not comparing UK towns or my home town to bat shit.
I suppose there are so many liability issues around bat handling that's just a job in itself. Believe me when I say I can't work with my brother who does similar work. Those liability concerns will save lives, but I'd like my own story. Maybe somebody I love in the future can have their own story too.
Sorry for "crapping" in the thread.
JumpCrisscross•2d ago
tom_•2d ago
iterance•2d ago
PlunderBunny•2d ago
harvey9•2d ago
JuniperMesos•2d ago
teamonkey•2d ago
harvey9•1d ago
chgs•2d ago
s1artibartfast•2d ago
Similar subjects today are noticably darker without the buttress of social optimism. Films like The Joker seem less like a cautionary tale and more like a documentary. Is the joker now the protagonist?
zeristor•2d ago
relaxing•2d ago
jimnotgym•2d ago
stuaxo•2d ago
zeristor•2d ago
mschuster91•2d ago
Sadly, the way all Western economies have devolved over the last decades, real estate equity is the only form of wealth that at least some part of the 99% has for retirement.
lotsofpulp•1d ago
Of course, many people prefer to invest in extra big and luxurious houses/cars/vacations/restaurants/alcohol/coffee/etc out and I would even throw in educations with low ROI, rather than broad market index funds.
This is specifically about those who had been earning money in the ~1980 to ~2010 period, for the vast majority, their house should not have been the only equity.
mschuster91•1d ago
The problem is, index funds have no inherent value, they (just like all stocks and other financial derivatives/instruments) are effectively a paper with one or another form of "IOU" written on it. Economic crashes, wars, tariffs, morons in politics, whatever, there are tons of ways massive amounts of value can be straight up destroyed in a matter of days.
A house however? As long as it's reasonably well built, come what may, you still have a roof over your head. No one's gonna come and kick you out of it. And that's inherent value.
kasey_junk•1d ago
Real estate suffers from the whims of the market, governmental policy and especially war. Even if you rule out outliers like imminent domain (used on many many homeowners in the first half of the 20th century in the US) or destruction via war, simple economic changes as we saw in 2008 cause people to lose their homes.
JumpCrisscross•1d ago
What do you think a real-estate deed is?
> No one's gonna come and kick you out of it
Property tax. Title fraud. Mortgage fraud. Mistaken foreclosure. (Legitimate foreclosure.) Squatters' rights. Eminent domain.
The difference between real estate and financial assets is possession. But every time you're away from your home, you aren't in possession of it. And possession, control and ownership are three overlapping but ultimately separate concepts.
brewdad•2d ago
JumpCrisscross•2d ago
I could argue this for the journalism disclosing Flint’s lead problems. The root cause isn’t the commentary. It’s the reality. Balancing one’s property value is the fraud conveyed on a prospective buyer.