John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

In the 1800s, with nearly zero regulation, anything went, and
everything was built. The free market addressed quality issues as
usual. Generally the good stuff survives, and the bad is almost
entirely erased. The result was the country gradually built up an
increasing stock of quality builds.

Are you forgetting the people who lived at eg 22 Back Blacow Street
Preston -

am not familiar with the address unfortunately. There was a lot of very
poor housing in Victorian times, and I believe I addressed that question.

What you failed to address was the misery of the people forced to live there.

I already said basic standards would be in place to ensure safety and
functionality. I already said I lived in a shack and experienced no
such illness or misery. Its a bogeyman.


You are deluding yourself.

snip the sillies.

Non-regulation does *not* mean very basic.

it means a wider range, more basic, and more quality. More basic
because those that want to cut spending are free to do it, and more
quality because those with more money neednt waste it on the artificial
price increases inherent in todays system.


Non-regulation means illness and poverty and debt.

How does cheaper housing cause debt exactly?
How does fit housing cause illness exactly?


Do tell me how many kids
you brought up under your steel roof,

none. It was quite fit for my purpose at the time, but would not suit
everyone.

how far you could tust the water that
was supplied,

no problem there

how much it cost to heat the room,

trying to remember, was very cheap, it was paraffin

and how you dealt with the
black mould.

there was none, it had adequate ventilation

As I said, the mistakes of the Victorian period are easy to avoid today.

They are, By strict regulation.

yes... but we have gone far beyond that today.


If you're suggesting that companies are much
more benign today you are seriously unhinged.

Youre not entirely following this.


NT