FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > bailing out banksters or the feckless
bailing out banksters or the feckless
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"If banks go bust, who will provide the cheap credit to people so they can get that new car or pay for the holiday they can't afford and allow them to live outside their means..interesting point you raise though " . I've just finished a very entertaining and thought provoking book called debunking economics. Now in it one of the main points was that the big overhaul problem facing the economy was public debt and not state debt!. In fact what he says is because the public are too in debt the states are having to borrow in their absence. It's a bit long winded but the basic premise was that we,d have been better off using QE to directly bail out people, the ones with debt would have to use the money to pay it off and the others can use it as a windfall but there would be certain limitations, he'd looked at replacing the failed banks with new government brought in ones. The main problem he had with public debt was because they are now paying off debt, this deflates the money supply because as debt gets paid off it reduces banks leverages which means less borrowing which means more debt paid off and so on and so on!. But it occurred to me at the end, would I feel just as bad having to bail out feckless borrowers as I feel about having to bail out fraudster bankers  | |||
| |||
"Reading recent threads got me wondering. If it transpires that bailing out public debt directly instead of bank debt would people feel bad having to directly bail out people who've over spent in their life's or would you prefer bailing out those banksters in the city that encouraged the reckless spending!" No, no, no! The government encouraged spending and reckless borrowing, in their search for growth. The banks just provide the service. Banks take money from the rich, lend it to others, and take a cut from the interest. So when they gambled, sorry - invested badly and lost the money, it was the rich who would have lost out if we didn't lend money to the banks. In Cyprus they had to accept this loss, here Gordon Brown decided to use taxpayers money to extend to guarantee to be unlimited. But the tax payer gets the money back, and if we're honest, the rich are, in the main, the taxpayers, so who cares? Admittedly, I'd be a little more sceptical if it was Osborne suggesting we give the banks money... "I ask this as recently some economists now believe the best way to recover from 08 is to directly bail out public debt and let some banks go bust?" We can't bail out public debt with public borrowing can we? I think the suggestion is to write off the debts of the poor, with the view that they are more likely to spend and get the economy growing. However, why just benefit those who have borrowed foolishly, better to give a handout, of around £1000pa to all the poor. Let us/them spend it on repaying their loans, or whatever they wish to spend it on. Of course, by nearly doubling.the personal allowance, this is exactly what the coalition has done. Win, win (Sort of. So they tell us...) Mr ddc | |||
"Reading recent threads got me wondering. If it transpires that bailing out public debt directly instead of bank debt would people feel bad having to directly bail out people who've over spent in their life's or would you prefer bailing out those banksters in the city that encouraged the reckless spending! No, no, no! The government encouraged spending and reckless borrowing, in their search for growth. The banks just provide the service. Banks take money from the rich, lend it to others, and take a cut from the interest. So when they gambled, sorry - invested badly and lost the money, it was the rich who would have lost out if we didn't lend money to the banks. In Cyprus they had to accept this loss, here Gordon Brown decided to use taxpayers money to extend to guarantee to be unlimited. But the tax payer gets the money back, and if we're honest, the rich are, in the main, the taxpayers, so who cares? Admittedly, I'd be a little more sceptical if it was Osborne suggesting we give the banks money... I ask this as recently some economists now believe the best way to recover from 08 is to directly bail out public debt and let some banks go bust? We can't bail out public debt with public borrowing can we? I think the suggestion is to write off the debts of the poor, with the view that they are more likely to spend and get the economy growing. However, why just benefit those who have borrowed foolishly, better to give a handout, of around £1000pa to all the poor. Let us/them spend it on repaying their loans, or whatever they wish to spend it on. Of course, by nearly doubling.the personal allowance, this is exactly what the coalition has done. Win, win (Sort of. So they tell us...) Mr ddc" Why should the poor get a hand out or debt written off? I struggled and worked hard to get myself into a good job despite being in a position where I could have decided to take the esa/pip or whatever disability is called these days and lived of benefits. So why don't I get the nice lump sum of cash after all I'll be more likely to spend it on VAT products which benefits the government rather than the poor who will probably spend it on non VAT products. | |||
"Why should the poor get a hand out or debt written off? I struggled and worked hard to get myself into a good job despite being in a position where I could have decided to take the esa/pip or whatever disability is called these days and lived of benefits. " Your problem is that you think these two things are related. You were able to work to get yourself out of a situation - good for you. It doesn't then logically follow that everybody can and should get themselves out of a similar situation in the same way as you did. There is no benefit to anyone being poor or in debt. Different people will always need different levels of assistance. | |||
"Why should the poor get a hand out or debt written off? I struggled and worked hard to get myself into a good job despite being in a position where I could have decided to take the esa/pip or whatever disability is called these days and lived of benefits. Your problem is that you think these two things are related. You were able to work to get yourself out of a situation - good for you. It doesn't then logically follow that everybody can and should get themselves out of a similar situation in the same way as you did. There is no benefit to anyone being poor or in debt. Different people will always need different levels of assistance." Which had absolutely nothing to do with a one off payment to "the poor" does it? They will still be poor, nothing will change. The idea behind the payment was that it would stimulate the economy, the "poor" would not make the same kind of luxury economy stimulating purchases as the non poor you know because they would rather buy food and pay debts so the payment to them would be wasted from a economy boosting perspective wouldn't it? | |||
"Why should the poor get a hand out or debt written off? I struggled and worked hard to get myself into a good job despite being in a position where I could have decided to take the esa/pip or whatever disability is called these days and lived of benefits. Your problem is that you think these two things are related. You were able to work to get yourself out of a situation - good for you. It doesn't then logically follow that everybody can and should get themselves out of a similar situation in the same way as you did. There is no benefit to anyone being poor or in debt. Different people will always need different levels of assistance. Which had absolutely nothing to do with a one off payment to "the poor" does it? They will still be poor, nothing will change. The idea behind the payment was that it would stimulate the economy, the "poor" would not make the same kind of luxury economy stimulating purchases as the non poor you know because they would rather buy food and pay debts so the payment to them would be wasted from a economy boosting perspective wouldn't it? " You are ignoring the spiral of debt. If you write off someone's debt, it means that what money they have can be spent on other things, rather than servicing their debt, which invariably leads to increased debt. Purchases do not need to be luxuries to stimulate the economy. And the ability to save money, to not be living hand to mouth, has proven benefits in myriad areas. | |||
" Why should the poor get a hand out or debt written off? I struggled and worked hard to get myself into a good job despite being in a position where I could have decided to take the esa/pip or whatever disability is called these days and lived of benefits. So why don't I get the nice lump sum of cash after all I'll be more likely to spend it on VAT products which benefits the government rather than the poor who will probably spend it on non VAT products." Depending on your salary, you did. By raising the lower personal tax allowance, everyone who works and earns more than 6k benefits from this, unless they are higher rate tax-payers, who had their upper limit reduced to compensate for it (if I remember correctly) It was another way of ensuring that the poor who work get to keep more of their money. Whether one person deserves to be paid£6 per hour for cleaning toilets while another gets £50,000 per hour for kicking a football is another subject. Personally I'd be happy for a bit of collective socialism, where we work together for the common good, but in truth it never quite works out.... | |||
"Reading recent threads got me wondering. If it transpires that bailing out public debt directly instead of bank debt would people feel bad having to directly bail out people who've over spent in their life's or would you prefer bailing out those banksters in the city that encouraged the reckless spending! No, no, no! The government encouraged spending and reckless borrowing, in their search for growth. The banks just provide the service. Banks take money from the rich, lend it to others, and take a cut from the interest. So when they gambled, sorry - invested badly and lost the money, it was the rich who would have lost out if we didn't lend money to the banks. In Cyprus they had to accept this loss, here Gordon Brown decided to use taxpayers money to extend to guarantee to be unlimited. But the tax payer gets the money back, and if we're honest, the rich are, in the main, the taxpayers, so who cares? Admittedly, I'd be a little more sceptical if it was Osborne suggesting we give the banks money... I ask this as recently some economists now believe the best way to recover from 08 is to directly bail out public debt and let some banks go bust? We can't bail out public debt with public borrowing can we? I think the suggestion is to write off the debts of the poor, with the view that they are more likely to spend and get the economy growing. However, why just benefit those who have borrowed foolishly, better to give a handout, of around £1000pa to all the poor. Let us/them spend it on repaying their loans, or whatever they wish to spend it on. Of course, by nearly doubling.the personal allowance, this is exactly what the coalition has done. Win, win (Sort of. So they tell us...) Mr ddc" 
Very well put!
A | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It does seem we're getting to a point of needing a new economy. The movement from goods (via exploiting other countries) to financial services (via exploiting debt and financial bullshit) suggests the next model will be 'virtual' - one of the online mining type things maybe, but whatever it is it will likely be impossible to demand by design. As for putting cash in the hands of people - yes I think that would have worked better than QE but it would have upset a lot of wealthy people and that doesn't happen during a Tory govt. " You think it would have just upset wealthy people? | |||
 | |||
"It does seem we're getting to a point of needing a new economy. The movement from goods (via exploiting other countries) to financial services (via exploiting debt and financial bullshit) suggests the next model will be 'virtual' - one of the online mining type things maybe, but whatever it is it will likely be impossible to demand by design. As for putting cash in the hands of people - yes I think that would have worked better than QE but it would have upset a lot of wealthy people and that doesn't happen during a Tory govt. You think it would have just upset wealthy people? " Nope, but mostly yes | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water." Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement. | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement. "Looks like we were both right then! | |||
"It does seem we're getting to a point of needing a new economy. The movement from goods (via exploiting other countries) to financial services (via exploiting debt and financial bullshit) suggests the next model will be 'virtual' - one of the online mining type things maybe, but whatever it is it will likely be impossible to demand by design. As for putting cash in the hands of people - yes I think that would have worked better than QE but it would have upset a lot of wealthy people and that doesn't happen during a Tory govt. You think it would have just upset wealthy people? Nope, but mostly yes" I think it would have upset every person who didn't receive that cash, who saw someone else who did receive it, who perhaps they didn't think deserved to because they were receiving it off the back of having run up large debts irresponsibly. Try policing those riots. | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water." But in the real world, isn't most of what's on here personal opinion? Or is that just my opinion | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then! "We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument. | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then!
We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument. "Indeed...but ones prefaced by 'in the real world' very rarely are. If ever. | |||
"I think it would have upset every person who didn't receive that cash, who saw someone else who did receive it, who perhaps they didn't think deserved to because they were receiving it off the back of having run up large debts irresponsibly. Try policing those riots. " Why would anybody not receive it? Presumably you're referring to something I've missed above, but the proposal I heard suggested a couple of years ago was to provide a cash amount to every tax payer in the country. Do people riot over tax credits? | |||
"I think it would have upset every person who didn't receive that cash, who saw someone else who did receive it, who perhaps they didn't think deserved to because they were receiving it off the back of having run up large debts irresponsibly. Try policing those riots. Why would anybody not receive it? Presumably you're referring to something I've missed above, but the proposal I heard suggested a couple of years ago was to provide a cash amount to every tax payer in the country. Do people riot over tax credits? " I read the OP as we should have bailed out people's debts directly rather than bailing out the financial institutions who'd loaned to them. | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then!
We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument.
Indeed...but ones prefaced by 'in the real world' very rarely are. If ever."Except when 'in the real world' is a valid shorthand for grounding a hypothetical situation in reality. | |||
| |||
"Sorry - I was progressing the debate, but seems it's become an argument about arguing
"I must not have read down far enough before I got drawn into the argument about arguing, sorry | |||
"Sorry - I was progressing the debate, but seems it's become an argument about arguing
I must not have read down far enough before I got drawn into the argument about arguing, sorry "I'm not arguing about the argument about arguing.. | |||
"Sorry - I was progressing the debate, but seems it's become an argument about arguing
I must not have read down far enough before I got drawn into the argument about arguing, sorry
I'm not arguing about the argument about arguing..
"Well to be honest, in the real world....that's probably best  | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then!
We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument.
Indeed...but ones prefaced by 'in the real world' very rarely are. If ever.
Except when 'in the real world' is a valid shorthand for grounding a hypothetical situation in reality. "Correct! Your mistake though was in thinking that your 'in the real world' hypotheses was one grounded in reality, rather than entirely in the realm of personally prejudiced conjecture. Unless you think you can point to the evidence you think you are basing it on, of course... | |||
| |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then!
We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument.
Indeed...but ones prefaced by 'in the real world' very rarely are. If ever.
Except when 'in the real world' is a valid shorthand for grounding a hypothetical situation in reality.
Correct! Your mistake though was in thinking that your 'in the real world' hypotheses was one grounded in reality, rather than entirely in the realm of personally prejudiced conjecture.
Unless you think you can point to the evidence you think you are basing it on, of course..."I can point to as much evidence of my theory as you can point to evidence of knowing my motivation for using those four little words. | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then!
We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument.
Indeed...but ones prefaced by 'in the real world' very rarely are. If ever.
Except when 'in the real world' is a valid shorthand for grounding a hypothetical situation in reality.
Correct! Your mistake though was in thinking that your 'in the real world' hypotheses was one grounded in reality, rather than entirely in the realm of personally prejudiced conjecture.
Unless you think you can point to the evidence you think you are basing it on, of course...
I can point to as much evidence of my theory as you can point to evidence of knowing my motivation for using those four little words. "Rather think that the provision of one will either prove or disprove the other, don't you? | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. Well I did just use that phrase, so perhaps tell me what other shorthand I should have used for "outside the realms of economics journals and where people's irrational thoughts and feelings come into play in the way they react to situations and interact with each other." To be honest, when someone says to be honest, I usually think they're about to follow up with a bold and usually ill-informed statement.
Looks like we were both right then!
We are, but everyone's views expressed on here are coloured by their own beliefs and prejudices, because that's how opinions work. It doesn't mean that opinion can't actually be grounded in sense or fact or be a valid argument.
Indeed...but ones prefaced by 'in the real world' very rarely are. If ever.
Except when 'in the real world' is a valid shorthand for grounding a hypothetical situation in reality.
Correct! Your mistake though was in thinking that your 'in the real world' hypotheses was one grounded in reality, rather than entirely in the realm of personally prejudiced conjecture.
Unless you think you can point to the evidence you think you are basing it on, of course...
I can point to as much evidence of my theory as you can point to evidence of knowing my motivation for using those four little words.
Rather think that the provision of one will either prove or disprove the other, don't you?"No. Have a lovely day. | |||
| |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. But in the real world, isn't most of what's on here personal opinion? Or is that just my opinion "Glad I'm not going insane and someone else realises this is primarily a forum of personal opinion and not hard facts backed by solid scientific evidence  Thought I'd wandered onto entirely the wrong site there | |||
| |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. But in the real world, isn't most of what's on here personal opinion? Or is that just my opinion
Glad I'm not going insane and someone else realises this is primarily a forum of personal opinion and not hard facts backed by solid scientific evidence Thought I'd wandered onto entirely the wrong site there "I admire your tenacity in many of the threads on here, often long after I've given up. You Geordies must either have harder heads, or softer brick walls...
And good lord you can type fast!
| |||
"Opinions aren't sacrosanct. If you don't expect to have them challenged, then they are probably best kept to yourself. That is regardless of what site you are posting them on. Just because we are swingers, it doesn't mean we have to blindly accept whatever people decide to say." I always expect to have my opinion challenged, (and generally do) but you chose not to challenge the argument I was making (my opinion) but to criticise my usage of the phrase 'in the real world'. That didn't constitute meaningful challenge of my opinion (in my opinion). [Disclaimer: other opinions are available.] | |||
"To be honest, as soon as someone says 'in the real world' that's a cue for ignoring what they are saying. It's just shorthand for 'according to my personal beliefs and prejudices', and that the opinion holds no water. But in the real world, isn't most of what's on here personal opinion? Or is that just my opinion
Glad I'm not going insane and someone else realises this is primarily a forum of personal opinion and not hard facts backed by solid scientific evidence Thought I'd wandered onto entirely the wrong site there
I admire your tenacity in many of the threads on here, often long after I've given up. You Geordies must either have harder heads, or softer brick walls...
And good lord you can type fast!
"I'm not sure tenacity is the word most people would use, stubborn, argumentative bloody mindedness is probably more like it  | |||
"Opinions aren't sacrosanct. If you don't expect to have them challenged, then they are probably best kept to yourself. That is regardless of what site you are posting them on. Just because we are swingers, it doesn't mean we have to blindly accept whatever people decide to say. I always expect to have my opinion challenged, (and generally do) but you chose not to challenge the argument I was making (my opinion) but to criticise my usage of the phrase 'in the real world'. That didn't constitute meaningful challenge of my opinion (in my opinion). [Disclaimer: other opinions are available.] " Goodness, this could go on and on! Rather than point out to you where this is wrong, we'll just go and Fab some of your lovely pics instead. That'll learn you! | |||
 igate labour party policies of greed and envy that nearly did us. They will do it again and again. It’s in their blood to do it.
Tax credit system was very badly thought through and I can’t for the life of me understand why somebody didn’t spot it. Or maybe they did and just chose to open the floodgates as they knew the next election would bring poll meltdown back in 2010.
The Tax credit system was a flagship policy of Gordon Brown. It’s typical of the way in which large government departs are mishandled and money wasted by a labour governments. We must not let them get back in. In 5 years time we will be bankrupt again. You mark my words. You saw it on FAB first.
| |||
| |||
"Credit is the unpaid wages of the working class." So only the working class borrow money? 
Fuck! I'm working class!
When did that happen? 
A | |||
"Credit is the unpaid wages of the working class." Do you mean in loans or credit cards or catalogues and pay off schemes in stores? Is a mortgage not credit? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I would be happy for a deserving person to have £1000 to help them rather than bailing out a reckless banking system. However I would begrudge having £1000 paid to someone who is equally as reckless having got into debt in the first place. Too many feckless whales hide behind pseudo mental illness and other spurious physical excuses these days. Someone truly deserving of a chance who would not squander it on takeaways and paying off payday loans! The problem would be identifying the truly deserving? " Are feckless skinny people ok? | |||
"Credit is the unpaid wages of the working class. Do you mean in loans or credit cards or catalogues and pay off schemes in stores? Is a mortgage not credit? " Its a quote taken from a speech highlighting how if wages are to low consumerism would fail, it basically points to the fact that if you need to borrow its because you are not been paid enough. | |||
"I would be happy for a deserving person to have £1000 to help them rather than bailing out a reckless banking system. However I would begrudge having £1000 paid to someone who is equally as reckless having got into debt in the first place. Too many feckless whales hide behind pseudo mental illness and other spurious physical excuses these days. Someone truly deserving of a chance who would not squander it on takeaways and paying off payday loans! The problem would be identifying the truly deserving? Are feckless skinny people ok? "Oops how did whales get in there? | |||
"Credit is the unpaid wages of the working class. So only the working class borrow money?
Fuck! I'm working class!
When did that happen?
Lol you must be so wealthy you don't need to work but then again if your needing to borrow maybe you are not that wealthy.
A" | |||
| |||
"Feckless whales are a massive problem "Genuinely have no idea how that got in there. But it's ok the feckless are still in bed so I will be ok for a couple of hours yet.  | |||
| |||
"Feckless whales are a massive problem "Coming over here, lying on our beaches... | |||
"Feckless whales are a massive problem
Coming over here, lying on our beaches... "Immigrant whales cause huge problems | |||
| |||
"Well If you read my post properly then you'd see my point is that it's fine and dandy to pay your taxes into a system, but if you are paying it into a system that noddy and big ears thought of there isn't much point because they just don't know how important it is to look after your money. All they want to do is race about in a nice big yellow car and pretend they know what they are doing." If I understand correctly you benefited from an over payment in the end. Perhaps an example of the original proposal already in action! | |||
| |||
"Credit is the unpaid wages of the working class. So only the working class borrow money?
Fuck! I'm working class!
When did that happen?
Lol you must be so wealthy you don't need to work but then again if your needing to borrow maybe you are not that wealthy.
A "Nope. I work - like many. I also borrow - like many. Class doesn't come into it. That quote is fundamentally flawed. Else only working class people would have credit cards, overdrafts, car finance, personal loans, mortgages, store cards etc. Borrowing money isn't always a negative thing. How would people afford to buy houses and cars without it? Borrowing what you know you can't afford to pay back? That's a different kettle of fish altogether!! People have always been quick to blame banks and financial institutions for so called 'irresponsible lending'. Yet for every lending activity there's two sides - the lender and the borrower. The simple fact is that both share responsibility and in the past for as many bad decisions made by banks there have been individuals happy to borrow money they knew full well the couldn't afford to repay in either the short or long term. Bad customer decisions (and in many cases dishonesty and borderline fraud) are as much to blame as bad lender decisions. And when things go wrong? The customer often (if unsecured lending) ends up with an adverse credit rating, an inability to borrow for a few years - and then six years later is back to square one as if nothing ever happened. The lender? The debts get written off - resulting in an impact on income, profitatabty and costs. Which affects everyone - staff, shareholders (and before someone says "so what" don't forget the largest shareholders of financial institutions are pension funds - probably mine, yours and many others!) and of course customers and consumers. As with many things in life plenty of people are quick to put the blame for anything on anyone but themselves. A | |||
"Yep but why was I bullied and almost forced to believe I'd done something wrong for 7 years. Hounded with final demands and threats of court action if I didn't pay. I so nearly gave up and paid up. Thank goodness I stumbled on that website. It was a fucking nightmare." I can imagine, doesn't sound nice. | |||
"I think it would have upset every person who didn't receive that cash, who saw someone else who did receive it, who perhaps they didn't think deserved to because they were receiving it off the back of having run up large debts irresponsibly. Try policing those riots. Why would anybody not receive it? Presumably you're referring to something I've missed above, but the proposal I heard suggested a couple of years ago was to provide a cash amount to every tax payer in the country. Do people riot over tax credits? " . No that's exactly what he's proposed a large in theory tax refund for every tax payer(this would be printed QE money) with some stipulations like those with debts had to pay off the debts those without could spend the money but you wouldn't be allowed to take the money outside the uk. The economists was a guy called Steve keen, his ideas have always been outside the box, but recently because he predicted the 08 crash, deflation from QE and the banking problem we face, he's being taken more and more seriously. He treats economics without morals and that's why he's interesting, but that's also why I posed the question would people feel just as bad bailing out feckless people as reckless people!!. Is the fact that the best answer can't be done because we conceive it as unfair | |||
| |||
"Well again if you read my post this approach has been virtually tried out by Messrs Brown and Blair and it was a dismal failure, resulting in pouring billions of pounds down a huge black hole. Granted although they weren't the absolute cause of the ecomomic crash their policies certainly fanned the flames creating a monumental structural deficit that has taken 5 years of punishing austerity to get half way out of. You know how the old saying goes, when you are digging a hole you can't get out of, stop digging. It's an experiment I think Mr Stephen Keen should be allowed to keep in his smoke and mirrors magic box thankyou. It wont work. " . No his theory is about how QE is used to best affect. Your getting moral again which was my point and his | |||
" Borrowing money isn't always a negative thing. How would people afford to buy houses and cars without it? Borrowing what you know you can't afford to pay back? That's a different kettle of fish altogether!! People have always been quick to blame banks and financial institutions for so called 'irresponsible lending'. Yet for every lending activity there's two sides - the lender and the borrower. The simple fact is that both share responsibility and in the past for as many bad decisions made by banks there have been individuals happy to borrow money they knew full well the couldn't afford to repay in either the short or long term. Bad customer decisions (and in many cases dishonesty and borderline fraud) are as much to blame as bad lender decisions. And when things go wrong? The customer often (if unsecured lending) ends up with an adverse credit rating, an inability to borrow for a few years - and then six years later is back to square one as if nothing ever happened. The lender? The debts get written off - resulting in an impact on income, profitatabty and costs. Which affects everyone - staff, shareholders (and before someone says "so what" don't forget the largest shareholders of financial institutions are pension funds - probably mine, yours and many others!) and of course customers and consumers. As with many things in life plenty of people are quick to put the blame for anything on anyone but themselves. A" Borrowing money is always negative.. It is entirely based upon consumption, and is encouraged at a national level for the sole purpose of making the rich richer. Fraud? The whole fractional reserve banking system is fraudulent! | |||
"You know how the old saying goes, when you are digging a hole you can't get out of, stop digging. " I'd use that quote to describe austerity.. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't quite see you point. I was using it in context of if you are digging a deep deep hole that's so deep eventually you wont be climbing out of it, then stop you must stop before it gets to that point. Isn't that what the greeks have done. In the good times their government borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to give their people a feeling of affluence and well being. When the Banker shit hit the fan their sovereign debt meant they were in a bigger, deeper hole than they could climb out of. Other countries said Oi, stop digging that hole so deep you over their in the far bottom right hand corner of Europe, you are starting to suck us into your Black hole, put a plug in and start climbing out before we turn the taps off completely." . Again your confusing state debt and public debt | |||
| |||
"I think it would have upset every person who didn't receive that cash, who saw someone else who did receive it, who perhaps they didn't think deserved to because they were receiving it off the back of having run up large debts irresponsibly. Try policing those riots. Why would anybody not receive it? Presumably you're referring to something I've missed above, but the proposal I heard suggested a couple of years ago was to provide a cash amount to every tax payer in the country. Do people riot over tax credits? . No that's exactly what he's proposed a large in theory tax refund for every tax payer(this would be printed QE money) with some stipulations like those with debts had to pay off the debts those without could spend the money but you wouldn't be allowed to take the money outside the uk. The economists was a guy called Steve keen, his ideas have always been outside the box, but recently because he predicted the 08 crash, deflation from QE and the banking problem we face, he's being taken more and more seriously. He treats economics without morals and that's why he's interesting, but that's also why I posed the question would people feel just as bad bailing out feckless people as reckless people!!. Is the fact that the best answer can't be done because we conceive it as unfair" I think I heard him on the radio a couple of years ago. If not it was somebody with a similar theory. I think in the short term it would have worked well, certainly more than QE. But ultimately it would just be rebooting the same cycle - people would repay some debt but then take on more as confidence grew and before we know it we'll be back again, except perhaps with an expectance by some of a further handout. | |||
" Borrowing money isn't always a negative thing. How would people afford to buy houses and cars without it? Borrowing what you know you can't afford to pay back? That's a different kettle of fish altogether!! People have always been quick to blame banks and financial institutions for so called 'irresponsible lending'. Yet for every lending activity there's two sides - the lender and the borrower. The simple fact is that both share responsibility and in the past for as many bad decisions made by banks there have been individuals happy to borrow money they knew full well the couldn't afford to repay in either the short or long term. Bad customer decisions (and in many cases dishonesty and borderline fraud) are as much to blame as bad lender decisions. And when things go wrong? The customer often (if unsecured lending) ends up with an adverse credit rating, an inability to borrow for a few years - and then six years later is back to square one as if nothing ever happened. The lender? The debts get written off - resulting in an impact on income, profitatabty and costs. Which affects everyone - staff, shareholders (and before someone says "so what" don't forget the largest shareholders of financial institutions are pension funds - probably mine, yours and many others!) and of course customers and consumers. As with many things in life plenty of people are quick to put the blame for anything on anyone but themselves. A Borrowing money is always negative.. It is entirely based upon consumption, and is encouraged at a national level for the sole purpose of making the rich richer. Fraud? The whole fractional reserve banking system is fraudulent! " Really?
So everyone should stop taking out mortgages to buy houses and rent? Or build a mud hut or live in a tree?
Or stop buying cars on finance and either save up (even if it takes twenty years) or just use public transport/walk?
The need and means to borrow has been around for thousands of years. It's far from negative and if done correctly offers far more advantages than disadvantages.
A
Where is this Utopia? I'd love to live there! | |||
"Don't quite see you point. I was using it in context of if you are digging a deep deep hole that's so deep eventually you wont be climbing out of it, then stop you must stop before it gets to that point. Isn't that what the greeks have done. In the good times their government borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to give their people a feeling of affluence and well being. When the Banker shit hit the fan their sovereign debt meant they were in a bigger, deeper hole than they could climb out of. Other countries said Oi, stop digging that hole so deep you over their in the far bottom right hand corner of Europe, you are starting to suck us into your Black hole, put a plug in and start climbing out before we turn the taps off completely." My point is that austerity measures don't work either. It's not just the Greeks, global debt is fast on it's way to exceeding GWP. We're all in this hole together and nobody seems to want out. At least the Greeks are attempting to collapse the imaginary hole, instead of continuing to wallow at the bottom. | |||
| |||
" My point is that austerity measures don't work either. It's not just the Greeks, global debt is fast on it's way to exceeding GWP. We're all in this hole together and nobody seems to want out. At least the Greeks are attempting to collapse the imaginary hole, instead of continuing to wallow at the bottom. " I want out. There are only two ways out of debt: Stop spending and pay it off, or Go bankrupt. Let's see how the Greeks get on before we follow their example, something tells me even they will choose option a eventually... | |||
" Really?
So everyone should stop taking out mortgages to buy houses and rent? Or build a mud hut or live in a tree?
Or stop buying cars on finance and either save up (even if it takes twenty years) or just use public transport/walk?
The need and means to borrow has been around for thousands of years. It's far from negative and if done correctly offers far more advantages than disadvantages.
A
Where is this Utopia? I'd love to live there! "Wow what a sensationalistic response. No I do not think people should live in mud huts or rely solely on public transport. No I am not claiming borrowed money is never used in positive ways. It is the entire sentiment which is negative. Our entire economy is propped up by sky high property prices, and reliant on the populace being in significant amounts of debt. If you think that a positive thing, so be it. You can buy a car to suit any budget. If you want something shiny to show off in, yet rely on finance to do it who am I to judge. You haven't offered up a single real advantage to support your claim.. | |||
"No yes lol personal (public) debt not state debt. the QE is designed to release banks of problematic public debt, bad debts that fraudster bankers wrapped up in all sorts of fancy wrappings but are in fact massive useless pieces of rubbish that there now lumbered with, it is in fact why these banks are called zombie banks, there alive but in reality there insolvent!. His idea was to get rid of that bad public debt with write offs through state debt substituted tax credits, while setting up replacement banks and allowing the zombie ones to die, which he thinks they will inevitably have to do anyway, it's just were delaying there death 15 years!" Thought so
I think they call household debt Private Debt.
But don't you see that's what raising the personal tax allowances has effectively done?
It's normally done through interest rates, but this time it didn't work because people used the spare cash to pay down debt and the economy continued to shrink.
By raising the allowances, the money was given to the poorer, who did spend it.
See?
(I'll have you voting Tory yet ) | |||
"Don't quite see you point. I was using it in context of if you are digging a deep deep hole that's so deep eventually you wont be climbing out of it, then stop you must stop before it gets to that point. Isn't that what the greeks have done. In the good times their government borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to give their people a feeling of affluence and well being. When the Banker shit hit the fan their sovereign debt meant they were in a bigger, deeper hole than they could climb out of. Other countries said Oi, stop digging that hole so deep you over their in the far bottom right hand corner of Europe, you are starting to suck us into your Black hole, put a plug in and start climbing out before we turn the taps off completely. My point is that austerity measures don't work either. It's not just the Greeks, global debt is fast on it's way to exceeding GWP. We're all in this hole together and nobody seems to want out. At least the Greeks are attempting to collapse the imaginary hole, instead of continuing to wallow at the bottom. " . That's his point entirely that austerity compounds the problem of lower borrowing and fundamentally makes the problem worse by reducing the money supply further | |||
| |||
"Don't quite see you point. I was using it in context of if you are digging a deep deep hole that's so deep eventually you wont be climbing out of it, then stop you must stop before it gets to that point. Isn't that what the greeks have done. In the good times their government borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to give their people a feeling of affluence and well being. When the Banker shit hit the fan their sovereign debt meant they were in a bigger, deeper hole than they could climb out of. Other countries said Oi, stop digging that hole so deep you over their in the far bottom right hand corner of Europe, you are starting to suck us into your Black hole, put a plug in and start climbing out before we turn the taps off completely. My point is that austerity measures don't work either. It's not just the Greeks, global debt is fast on it's way to exceeding GWP. We're all in this hole together and nobody seems to want out. At least the Greeks are attempting to collapse the imaginary hole, instead of continuing to wallow at the bottom. . That's his point entirely that austerity compounds the problem of lower borrowing and fundamentally makes the problem worse by reducing the money supply further" Yes but there's never enough money. eventually the printing presses can't cope and you end up taking your wages home in a wheel barrow. hyper inflation takes over. Ala' Zimbabwe and Weimar republic in the 20s and 30s and we all know what path that lead to. | |||
" Really?
So everyone should stop taking out mortgages to buy houses and rent? Or build a mud hut or live in a tree?
Or stop buying cars on finance and either save up (even if it takes twenty years) or just use public transport/walk?
The need and means to borrow has been around for thousands of years. It's far from negative and if done correctly offers far more advantages than disadvantages.
A
Where is this Utopia? I'd love to live there!
Wow what a sensationalistic response.
No I do not think people should live in mud huts or rely solely on public transport.
No I am not claiming borrowed money is never used in positive ways. It is the entire sentiment which is negative.
Our entire economy is propped up by sky high property prices, and reliant on the populace being in significant amounts of debt. If you think that a positive thing, so be it.
You can buy a car to suit any budget. If you want something shiny to show off in, yet rely on finance to do it who am I to judge.
You haven't offered up a single real advantage to support your claim..
"The post you've quoted is about as sensationalistic as your claim that borrowing is fundamentally and overwhelmingly negative. I seem to recall from a previous thread you mentioned you were going to inherit property. That's nice for you, but for me to own somewhere that I wanted to live, I had to borrow the money to do so. Yes I'm paying interest on my mortgage, but I'm also getting the benefit of living in the property, which I wouldn't have if I was living at my mam's house for the next 25 years saving up the money I would need to buy outright. | |||
" I want out. There are only two ways out of debt: Stop spending and pay it off, or Go bankrupt. Let's see how the Greeks get on before we follow their example, something tells me even they will choose option a eventually..." Agreed, a wise man doesn't follow blindly. Option A is an impossibility though.. If you have nothing and I lend you £10 but say that you owe me £12 how can you ever pay me that back without perpetuating the cycle of debt? | |||
"No yes lol personal (public) debt not state debt. the QE is designed to release banks of problematic public debt, bad debts that fraudster bankers wrapped up in all sorts of fancy wrappings but are in fact massive useless pieces of rubbish that there now lumbered with, it is in fact why these banks are called zombie banks, there alive but in reality there insolvent!. His idea was to get rid of that bad public debt with write offs through state debt substituted tax credits, while setting up replacement banks and allowing the zombie ones to die, which he thinks they will inevitably have to do anyway, it's just were delaying there death 15 years! Thought so
I think they call household debt Private Debt.
But don't you see that's what raising the personal tax allowances has effectively done?
It's normally done through interest rates, but this time it didn't work because people used the spare cash to pay down debt and the economy continued to shrink.
By raising the allowances, the money was given to the poorer, who did spend it.
See?
(I'll have you voting Tory yet )". Yes but the point is, it's only borrowing that increases the money supply. So when somebody takes out a loan that loan is then deposited in another bank that bank takes that money, let's say its a 1000 pounds they hold 10% and lend 900 pounds out again in a new loan, that 900 is deposited again 10% is held and 810 pounds is lent out in new loans... This cycle goes on until that original 1000 pounds has made 10,000 pounds, so the banks create 9000 pounds from nowhere out of 1000 pounds originally deposited. The affect also works in reverse. If somebody pays off that original 1000 pound loan all the other loans become under leveraged and so the banks have to recall loans to stop it. So in effect it's only the banks that can increase our decrease the money supply, what he argues is that during recessions the state steps in to borrow what the people can't and trys to increase the money supply to promote growth. It's a very fascinating book and one I've had to re read a number of times as I easily got lost | |||
" I want out. There are only two ways out of debt: Stop spending and pay it off, or Go bankrupt. Let's see how the Greeks get on before we follow their example, something tells me even they will choose option a eventually... Agreed, a wise man doesn't follow blindly. Option A is an impossibility though.. If you have nothing and I lend you £10 but say that you owe me £12 how can you ever pay me that back without perpetuating the cycle of debt? " I work hard, and perhaps ask you for a little extra time. The only other option to to expect my kids to pay you back. But that doesn't seem fair to me, and would make me feel like a bad parent. We'll do it, but it won't be easy, and we just need to be realistic. If I don't pay you back, you won't lend to me next time I need it. | |||
| |||
"Don't quite see you point. I was using it in context of if you are digging a deep deep hole that's so deep eventually you wont be climbing out of it, then stop you must stop before it gets to that point. Isn't that what the greeks have done. In the good times their government borrowed and borrowed and borrowed to give their people a feeling of affluence and well being. When the Banker shit hit the fan their sovereign debt meant they were in a bigger, deeper hole than they could climb out of. Other countries said Oi, stop digging that hole so deep you over their in the far bottom right hand corner of Europe, you are starting to suck us into your Black hole, put a plug in and start climbing out before we turn the taps off completely. My point is that austerity measures don't work either. It's not just the Greeks, global debt is fast on it's way to exceeding GWP. We're all in this hole together and nobody seems to want out. At least the Greeks are attempting to collapse the imaginary hole, instead of continuing to wallow at the bottom. . That's his point entirely that austerity compounds the problem of lower borrowing and fundamentally makes the problem worse by reducing the money supply further Yes but there's never enough money. eventually the printing presses can't cope and you end up taking your wages home in a wheel barrow. hyper inflation takes over. Ala' Zimbabwe and Weimar republic in the 20s and 30s and we all know what path that lead to." . Hyper inflation as he points out does exactly the same as normal inflation only over a different time period! | |||
" I want out. There are only two ways out of debt: Stop spending and pay it off, or Go bankrupt. Let's see how the Greeks get on before we follow their example, something tells me even they will choose option a eventually... Agreed, a wise man doesn't follow blindly. Option A is an impossibility though.. If you have nothing and I lend you £10 but say that you owe me £12 how can you ever pay me that back without perpetuating the cycle of debt? I work hard, and perhaps ask you for a little extra time. The only other option to to expect my kids to pay you back. But that doesn't seem fair to me, and would make me feel like a bad parent. We'll do it, but it won't be easy, and we just need to be realistic. If I don't pay you back, you won't lend to me next time I need it. ". The fascinating thing about QE is were lending from ourselves .
In reality nobody borrows anything of anyone, what bonds do is attempt to give value to valueless currency, but no nation state borrows all it's money from anybody!.
There borrowing it in reality from your kids who aren't born | |||
" The post you've quoted is about as sensationalistic as your claim that borrowing is fundamentally and overwhelmingly negative. I seem to recall from a previous thread you mentioned you were going to inherit property. That's nice for you, but for me to own somewhere that I wanted to live, I had to borrow the money to do so. Yes I'm paying interest on my mortgage, but I'm also getting the benefit of living in the property, which I wouldn't have if I was living at my mam's house for the next 25 years saving up the money I would need to buy outright." You love arguing you lol. I shall redirect you to what i have already written; "No I am not claiming borrowed money is never used in positive ways. It is the entire sentiment which is negative. Our entire economy is propped up by sky high property prices, and reliant on the populace being in significant amounts of debt. If you think that a positive thing, so be it." Is property ownership the be all and end all? Can you not rent and be happy? Why is property so prohibitively expensive in the first place. If you can give me a genuine example of how debt is ever a positive thing, then we can continue to debate. Giving me examples of where debt is a necessary evil does not constitute said debt having a positive influence. | |||
"Yes I agree with you actually. They seem to have dug too deep a hole to climb out of. Somebody has got to chuck them down a ladder. Their voices are very far down at the bottom of a very deep well of despair." The trouble is they listened to the socialists, and said 'Feck off, we don't want your stinking eu ladder, we'll use our own Greek ladder. We're a proud nation who doesn't need your charity' Suddenly they're back out on the streets rioting and the government is condsidering using private pension funds to pay state wages. (Remember Maxwell anyone?) Socialists and Nationalists - dontcha just luv em. Thank god we could never get a government made up of Socialists amd Nationalists... Oh, hang on | |||
"Yes I agree with you actually. They seem to have dug too deep a hole to climb out of. Somebody has got to chuck them down a ladder. Their voices are very far down at the bottom of a very deep well of despair. The trouble is they listened to the socialists, and said 'Feck off, we don't want your stinking eu ladder, we'll use our own Greek ladder. We're a proud nation who doesn't need your charity' Suddenly they're back out on the streets rioting and the government is condsidering using private pension funds to pay state wages. (Remember Maxwell anyone?) Socialists and Nationalists - dontcha just luv em. Thank god we could never get a government made up of Socialists amd Nationalists... Oh, hang on ". Look a little further down the road. I think you'll find its capitalism at heart. Last time I looked I think there's about 6 countries in the world running at a credit. That means 197 other countries are running deficits!!. The biggest of all being the good old US | |||
" The post you've quoted is about as sensationalistic as your claim that borrowing is fundamentally and overwhelmingly negative. I seem to recall from a previous thread you mentioned you were going to inherit property. That's nice for you, but for me to own somewhere that I wanted to live, I had to borrow the money to do so. Yes I'm paying interest on my mortgage, but I'm also getting the benefit of living in the property, which I wouldn't have if I was living at my mam's house for the next 25 years saving up the money I would need to buy outright. You love arguing you lol. I shall redirect you to what i have already written; "No I am not claiming borrowed money is never used in positive ways. It is the entire sentiment which is negative. Our entire economy is propped up by sky high property prices, and reliant on the populace being in significant amounts of debt. If you think that a positive thing, so be it." Is property ownership the be all and end all? Can you not rent and be happy? Why is property so prohibitively expensive in the first place. If you can give me a genuine example of how debt is ever a positive thing, then we can continue to debate. Giving me examples of where debt is a necessary evil does not constitute said debt having a positive influence. " My opinion is coloured by my experience of debt having positive influence on my life. Your opinion is coloured by your experience of it as a negative thing (or not having needed it). While we are in the system we're in, which I don't see as overwhelmingly negative, then debt can be a positive tool. Could you give me an example of how the system/society would function properly without debt, in your ideal world? | |||
" Really?
So everyone should stop taking out mortgages to buy houses and rent? Or build a mud hut or live in a tree?
Or stop buying cars on finance and either save up (even if it takes twenty years) or just use public transport/walk?
The need and means to borrow has been around for thousands of years. It's far from negative and if done correctly offers far more advantages than disadvantages.
A
Where is this Utopia? I'd love to live there!
Wow what a sensationalistic response.
No I do not think people should live in mud huts or rely solely on public transport.
No I am not claiming borrowed money is never used in positive ways. It is the entire sentiment which is negative.
Our entire economy is propped up by sky high property prices, and reliant on the populace being in significant amounts of debt. If you think that a positive thing, so be it.
You can buy a car to suit any budget. If you want something shiny to show off in, yet rely on finance to do it who am I to judge.
You haven't offered up a single real advantage to support your claim..
"Is interest free credit still borrowing? No cost and the ability to repay over time to enable budgeting and obtaining goods immediately. Even with interest - the ability to pay over time enables things to be obtained now - be they houses, cars, TV's, or whatever. If the interest isn't obscene and the repayments affordable and manageable? Where is the negative impact? As for your 'shiny to show off in' remark? How about I counter that with 'gets you from A to B without breaking down, being dangerous, requiring maintenance that exceeds the value to pass an MOT' ? The vast majority who buy a car on finance usually do so for reasons such than the simple need for a reliable, cheap to run, economical vehicle that is beyond their ability to purchase outright. A | |||
| |||
" Really?
So everyone should stop taking out mortgages to buy houses and rent? Or build a mud hut or live in a tree?
Or stop buying cars on finance and either save up (even if it takes twenty years) or just use public transport/walk?
The need and means to borrow has been around for thousands of years. It's far from negative and if done correctly offers far more advantages than disadvantages.
A
Where is this Utopia? I'd love to live there!
Wow what a sensationalistic response.
No I do not think people should live in mud huts or rely solely on public transport.
No I am not claiming borrowed money is never used in positive ways. It is the entire sentiment which is negative.
Our entire economy is propped up by sky high property prices, and reliant on the populace being in significant amounts of debt. If you think that a positive thing, so be it.
You can buy a car to suit any budget. If you want something shiny to show off in, yet rely on finance to do it who am I to judge.
You haven't offered up a single real advantage to support your claim..
Is interest free credit still borrowing?
No cost and the ability to repay over time to enable budgeting and obtaining goods immediately.
Even with interest - the ability to pay over time enables things to be obtained now - be they houses, cars, TV's, or whatever. If the interest isn't obscene and the repayments affordable and manageable? Where is the negative impact?
As for your 'shiny to show off in' remark? How about I counter that with 'gets you from A to B without breaking down, being dangerous, requiring maintenance that exceeds the value to pass an MOT' ? The vast majority who buy a car on finance usually do so for reasons such than the simple need for a reliable, cheap to run, economical vehicle that is beyond their ability to purchase outright.
A". Interest free debt causes it's own problems in a system that's designed for perpetual debt with interest. You only have to look at today's problems to see that | |||
" I work hard, and perhaps ask you for a little extra time. The only other option to to expect my kids to pay you back. But that doesn't seem fair to me, and would make me feel like a bad parent. We'll do it, but it won't be easy, and we just need to be realistic. If I don't pay you back, you won't lend to me next time I need it. "What if the maximum amount you can possibly earn for yourself is only the initial £10 that was borrowed though..? With respect to others not lending in the future, surely the goal is to never require that in the first place. My perspective can only be understood if you agree that the entire global finance model is fundamentally broken. Otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges | |||
" My opinion is coloured by my experience of debt having positive influence on my life. Your opinion is coloured by your experience of it as a negative thing (or not having needed it). While we are in the system we're in, which I don't see as overwhelmingly negative, then debt can be a positive tool. Could you give me an example of how the system/society would function properly without debt, in your ideal world? " You are making assumptions about me which are plain wrong. I am up to my eyeballs in student loans. Yes the loan is allowing me to better myself, but education should be free, not used as a stealth tax. I don't even know what you mean by function properly. However when is having debt better than not having debt. If you cannot provide an example then my initial statement must have been correct. | |||
"So if socialism causes debt how come the USA is in so much debt, it's not exactly a socialist utopia." Not all socialism is bad. That at the beginning of the Spanish Civil war was the closest any country ever came. Tony Blair in the early years was ok. The trouble is ultimately they mess up the economy, which then means they can't fund their spending plans, then they blindly bury their heads in the sand and blame everybody else. America interestingly is the opposite. There the right wing governments give out too much money in tax cuts and spend too much on 'defence' (wars and meddling). (But Fabio would probably give a better answer) In an ideal world I'd vote for the Tories to raise the money, but Labour to spend it, which is why the party I vote for depends on where I think my priorities lie at any given time. | |||
" Is interest free credit still borrowing? No cost and the ability to repay over time to enable budgeting and obtaining goods immediately. Even with interest - the ability to pay over time enables things to be obtained now - be they houses, cars, TV's, or whatever. If the interest isn't obscene and the repayments affordable and manageable? Where is the negative impact? As for your 'shiny to show off in' remark? How about I counter that with 'gets you from A to B without breaking down, being dangerous, requiring maintenance that exceeds the value to pass an MOT' ? The vast majority who buy a car on finance usually do so for reasons such than the simple need for a reliable, cheap to run, economical vehicle that is beyond their ability to purchase outright. A" Again still no advantage provided. You know why? That's because there isn't one. Well unless you own a bank.. The encouragement of the have it now attitude is exactly the problem. As someone said consumerism relies on wages being sufficient. When they are not, borrowing fills the gap. You are clutching at straws, a brand new car can be purchased for £5-6k there are very few people who couldn't save and purchase, even if it took a year or two. My point is that borrowing is either neutral or harmful, never positive. Yet our entire economy relies on it and that is why we are where we are. Something drastic needs to happen. There is no such thing as perpetual growth .. | |||
" Not all socialism is bad. That at the beginning of the Spanish Civil war was the closest any country ever came. Tony Blair in the early years was ok. The trouble is ultimately they mess up the economy, which then means they can't fund their spending plans, then they blindly bury their heads in the sand and blame everybody else. America interestingly is the opposite. There the right wing governments give out too much money in tax cuts and spend too much on 'defence' (wars and meddling). (But Fabio would probably give a better answer) In an ideal world I'd vote for the Tories to raise the money, but Labour to spend it, which is why the party I vote for depends on where I think my priorities lie at any given time." You are only talking about socialism under capitalism though.. | |||
| |||
"True, but I think all the alternatives to Capitalism that have been tried, failed." True, but they have all relied on a monetary based economy. I don't think we are there yet, but i think eventually we can move to a resource based one. I find it incredibly naive when people think that capitalism is the pinnacle of what humanity can achieve. Yes it works, but is it ideal? I mean feudalism worked didn't it? | |||
"True, but I think all the alternatives to Capitalism that have been tried, failed." The alternative hasn't been tried yet, or likely even thought up, but there will need to be an alternative in the not too distant future. I think we'll see considerable political and economic change in the next 20 years.. | |||
 | |||
| |||
" My opinion is coloured by my experience of debt having positive influence on my life. Your opinion is coloured by your experience of it as a negative thing (or not having needed it). While we are in the system we're in, which I don't see as overwhelmingly negative, then debt can be a positive tool. Could you give me an example of how the system/society would function properly without debt, in your ideal world? You are making assumptions about me which are plain wrong. I am up to my eyeballs in student loans. Yes the loan is allowing me to better myself, but education should be free, not used as a stealth tax. I don't even know what you mean by function properly. However when is having debt better than not having debt. If you cannot provide an example then my initial statement must have been correct. " Having manageable debt AND the thing which I have used that debt to purchase is better than not having debt and not having the thing I needed. As I said, that is on the basis of the world we actually live in. There may well be a better alternative out there, but I don't know what it is, it sure as hell doesn't exist in any functioning country at the moment. I'm a realistic person. I don't think anything is to be gained by just saying it's all bad/wrong/negative without actually providing a viable alternative approach. | |||
| |||
" Is interest free credit still borrowing? No cost and the ability to repay over time to enable budgeting and obtaining goods immediately. Even with interest - the ability to pay over time enables things to be obtained now - be they houses, cars, TV's, or whatever. If the interest isn't obscene and the repayments affordable and manageable? Where is the negative impact? As for your 'shiny to show off in' remark? How about I counter that with 'gets you from A to B without breaking down, being dangerous, requiring maintenance that exceeds the value to pass an MOT' ? The vast majority who buy a car on finance usually do so for reasons such than the simple need for a reliable, cheap to run, economical vehicle that is beyond their ability to purchase outright. A Again still no advantage provided. You know why? That's because there isn't one. Well unless you own a bank.. The encouragement of the have it now attitude is exactly the problem. As someone said consumerism relies on wages being sufficient. When they are not, borrowing fills the gap. You are clutching at straws, a brand new car can be purchased for £5-6k there are very few people who couldn't save and purchase, even if it took a year or two. My point is that borrowing is either neutral or harmful, never positive. Yet our entire economy relies on it and that is why we are where we are. Something drastic needs to happen. There is no such thing as perpetual growth .." The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A | |||
" My opinion is coloured by my experience of debt having positive influence on my life. Your opinion is coloured by your experience of it as a negative thing (or not having needed it). While we are in the system we're in, which I don't see as overwhelmingly negative, then debt can be a positive tool. Could you give me an example of how the system/society would function properly without debt, in your ideal world? You are making assumptions about me which are plain wrong. I am up to my eyeballs in student loans. Yes the loan is allowing me to better myself, but education should be free, not used as a stealth tax. I don't even know what you mean by function properly. However when is having debt better than not having debt. If you cannot provide an example then my initial statement must have been correct. Having manageable debt AND the thing which I have used that debt to purchase is better than not having debt and not having the thing I needed. As I said, that is on the basis of the world we actually live in. There may well be a better alternative out there, but I don't know what it is, it sure as hell doesn't exist in any functioning country at the moment. I'm a realistic person. I don't think anything is to be gained by just saying it's all bad/wrong/negative without actually providing a viable alternative approach. " What do you NEED so desperately that the only way to access it is through debt? You are saying because you cannot see the answer that it doesn't exist..? How incredibly miopic.. There are viable alternative approaches, many of which haven't even been thought of yet. The main obstacle to change and progress is conservatism.. | |||
"Certainly not the pinnacle HgNe , but currently it appears the most practical/realistic. But I'd be always happy to consider alternatives. Never tried alyernatives DiaryO? Many countries have had periods of anarchism, never works out. Ditto communism in the long run. The best study on what happened to Spain's experiment with Socialism, by someone who lived, fought and was nearly killed by it, is George Orwell's Animal Farm. The trouble is, those at the top always feel they deserve to be a special case." Thanks for the history lesson but I think you missed my point | |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A" Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. | |||
" My opinion is coloured by my experience of debt having positive influence on my life. Your opinion is coloured by your experience of it as a negative thing (or not having needed it). While we are in the system we're in, which I don't see as overwhelmingly negative, then debt can be a positive tool. Could you give me an example of how the system/society would function properly without debt, in your ideal world? You are making assumptions about me which are plain wrong. I am up to my eyeballs in student loans. Yes the loan is allowing me to better myself, but education should be free, not used as a stealth tax. I don't even know what you mean by function properly. However when is having debt better than not having debt. If you cannot provide an example then my initial statement must have been correct. Having manageable debt AND the thing which I have used that debt to purchase is better than not having debt and not having the thing I needed. As I said, that is on the basis of the world we actually live in. There may well be a better alternative out there, but I don't know what it is, it sure as hell doesn't exist in any functioning country at the moment. I'm a realistic person. I don't think anything is to be gained by just saying it's all bad/wrong/negative without actually providing a viable alternative approach. What do you NEED so desperately that the only way to access it is through debt? You are saying because you cannot see the answer that it doesn't exist..? How incredibly miopic.. There are viable alternative approaches, many of which haven't even been thought of yet. The main obstacle to change and progress is conservatism.. " A house and an education mainly. Although I've finished paying for the education now, because getting the qualifications I have allowed me to access the job I have which allowed me to pay it off. I could be debt free and rent off someone else, and not have gone to university and not be doing the job I am. But I actually don't want to. If getting into (manageable) debt allows me to live in a nice big house that I chose, and have a nice life then I'm ok with being a slave to capitalism. I'm not being myopic - I said I didn't know the answer, not that I thought it would never exist. I don't think it exists at the moment though. That's not to say I don't think others should explore ideas and look for alternatives, but how is saying 'it's all bad' helping further that progress? If I'm missing your point, it certainly seems you're missing mine. Until a viable alternative is discovered / presented / developed / whatever, what's the point in jumping up and down saying it's all terrible and bad? I'd rather consider the options available to me and make it work. | |||
"Certainly not the pinnacle HgNe , but currently it appears the most practical/realistic. But I'd be always happy to consider alternatives. Never tried alyernatives DiaryO? Many countries have had periods of anarchism, never works out. Ditto communism in the long run. The best study on what happened to Spain's experiment with Socialism, by someone who lived, fought and was nearly killed by it, is George Orwell's Animal Farm. The trouble is, those at the top always feel they deserve to be a special case." It is currently the most practical, not sure about realistic. Should we not still strive for progress though? Like i said before the systems that have been tried all still relied on a monetary economy. Money breeds corruption, and as you have said yourself those at the top cause the problem. All I know is if we carry on the way we are, we won't be around much longer.. | |||
" A house and an education mainly. Although I've finished paying for the education now, because getting the qualifications I have allowed me to access the job I have which allowed me to pay it off. I could be debt free and rent off someone else, and not have gone to university and not be doing the job I am. But I actually don't want to. If getting into (manageable) debt allows me to live in a nice big house that I chose, and have a nice life then I'm ok with being a slave to capitalism. I'm not being myopic - I said I didn't know the answer, not that I thought it would never exist. I don't think it exists at the moment though. That's not to say I don't think others should explore ideas and look for alternatives, but how is saying 'it's all bad' helping further that progress? If I'm missing your point, it certainly seems you're missing mine. Until a viable alternative is discovered / presented / developed / whatever, what's the point in jumping up and down saying it's all terrible and bad? I'd rather consider the options available to me and make it work. " You have missed my point throughout (a cynic might say purposefully haha). Debt is a means to an end, you are providing me with beneficial ends, and fallaciously claiming debt is necessary to achieve those ends. The first step to implementing change is to accept that there is in fact something which needs to be changed. I'm not jumping up and down, merely pointing out a very simple fact, and the fact you cannot bring yourself to agree proves we still have a looong way to go. | |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. " Invest to save. I borrowed money to go to university which allowed me to get a better job and have a higher salary, allowing me to repay the debt. A council borrows money to build a tunnel, the tolled traffic travelling through it repays the debt. If it didn't borrow the money, it couldn't build it, and the traffic jams would be an hour each side with all the associated cost of that lost productivity. Companies borrow money to buy new equipment that will allow them to expand production and repay that money and to employ more people. Someone starts a job that requires a car to get there, so buys the car on finance and their wages from having that job (which they wouldn't receive if they didn't have that car) are used to repay the borrowing. | |||
" A house and an education mainly. Although I've finished paying for the education now, because getting the qualifications I have allowed me to access the job I have which allowed me to pay it off. I could be debt free and rent off someone else, and not have gone to university and not be doing the job I am. But I actually don't want to. If getting into (manageable) debt allows me to live in a nice big house that I chose, and have a nice life then I'm ok with being a slave to capitalism. I'm not being myopic - I said I didn't know the answer, not that I thought it would never exist. I don't think it exists at the moment though. That's not to say I don't think others should explore ideas and look for alternatives, but how is saying 'it's all bad' helping further that progress? If I'm missing your point, it certainly seems you're missing mine. Until a viable alternative is discovered / presented / developed / whatever, what's the point in jumping up and down saying it's all terrible and bad? I'd rather consider the options available to me and make it work. You have missed my point throughout (a cynic might say purposefully haha). Debt is a means to an end, you are providing me with beneficial ends, and fallaciously claiming debt is necessary to achieve those ends. The first step to implementing change is to accept that there is in fact something which needs to be changed. I'm not jumping up and down, merely pointing out a very simple fact, and the fact you cannot bring yourself to agree proves we still have a looong way to go." I'm not missing your point, as I have said, within the system AS IT EXISTS, there are many ways debt can be a positive force. You are veering from saying that nobody NEEDS debt and shouldn't be buying flashy cars to saying that because we all rely on debt the system is fundamentally broken. I perhaps can't bring myself to agree because I still have not been presented with anything viable to agree with. | |||
| |||
"What I think we can all agree on, is that without spiraling debt we can't have the economy we have!. In which case the question should be which do you want!. A growing economy or spiraling debt. Aha and there you have it. To have one you have to have the other" Growing economy and growing debt I'd agree with you on. I'm not sure spiralling debt is a pre-requisite. I think it's been what has happened, but I don't know if it has to be inevitable. | |||
| |||
" Growing economy and growing debt I'd agree with you on. I'm not sure spiralling debt is a pre-requisite. I think it's been what has happened, but I don't know if it has to be inevitable. " You don't understand the systems then. Credit is only created through lending. I.e increasing debt. | |||
| |||
| |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. Invest to save. I borrowed money to go to university which allowed me to get a better job and have a higher salary, allowing me to repay the debt. A council borrows money to build a tunnel, the tolled traffic travelling through it repays the debt. If it didn't borrow the money, it couldn't build it, and the traffic jams would be an hour each side with all the associated cost of that lost productivity. Companies borrow money to buy new equipment that will allow them to expand production and repay that money and to employ more people. Someone starts a job that requires a car to get there, so buys the car on finance and their wages from having that job (which they wouldn't receive if they didn't have that car) are used to repay the borrowing." I was just about to type something along those lines but was busy helping someone source some cheap finance to enable them to expand their business and as a result create employment for others, generate higher profits, provide a wider range of services to their customers in a more efficient way, at cheaper rates due to the economies of scale and in doing so increase their corporation tax liability which boosts the government coffers! But of course that initial borrowing I was helping them with isn't advantageous to anyone!
I'd best try and think of a good example of the advantages borrowing can offer.
A | |||
"A wise man once told me that if you take all the money in the country and share it out among the population, in ten years time the same people will be rich and the poor likewise! The point is there is just no helping some people. " Presumably a wealthy wise man based on an impossible judgment. | |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. Invest to save. I borrowed money to go to university which allowed me to get a better job and have a higher salary, allowing me to repay the debt. A council borrows money to build a tunnel, the tolled traffic travelling through it repays the debt. If it didn't borrow the money, it couldn't build it, and the traffic jams would be an hour each side with all the associated cost of that lost productivity. Companies borrow money to buy new equipment that will allow them to expand production and repay that money and to employ more people. Someone starts a job that requires a car to get there, so buys the car on finance and their wages from having that job (which they wouldn't receive if they didn't have that car) are used to repay the borrowing. I was just about to type something along those lines but was busy helping someone source some cheap finance to enable them to expand their business and as a result create employment for others, generate higher profits, provide a wider range of services to their customers in a more efficient way, at cheaper rates due to the economies of scale and in doing so increase their corporation tax liability which boosts the government coffers! But of course that initial borrowing I was helping them with isn't advantageous to anyone!
I'd best try and think of a good example of the advantages borrowing can offer.
A". You miss the point entirely Capitalism doesn't create jobs for the love of creating jobs. In a perfect capitalist system the aim would be to have a company which creates wealth without employment, that's the natural evolution of capitalism. So where does it leave us? | |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. Invest to save. I borrowed money to go to university which allowed me to get a better job and have a higher salary, allowing me to repay the debt. A council borrows money to build a tunnel, the tolled traffic travelling through it repays the debt. If it didn't borrow the money, it couldn't build it, and the traffic jams would be an hour each side with all the associated cost of that lost productivity. Companies borrow money to buy new equipment that will allow them to expand production and repay that money and to employ more people. Someone starts a job that requires a car to get there, so buys the car on finance and their wages from having that job (which they wouldn't receive if they didn't have that car) are used to repay the borrowing. I was just about to type something along those lines but was busy helping someone source some cheap finance to enable them to expand their business and as a result create employment for others, generate higher profits, provide a wider range of services to their customers in a more efficient way, at cheaper rates due to the economies of scale and in doing so increase their corporation tax liability which boosts the government coffers! But of course that initial borrowing I was helping them with isn't advantageous to anyone!
I'd best try and think of a good example of the advantages borrowing can offer.
A.
You miss the point entirely
Capitalism doesn't create jobs for the love of creating jobs.
In a perfect capitalist system the aim would be to have a company which creates wealth without employment, that's the natural evolution of capitalism.
So where does it leave us?"I missed no point. A man can argue to his death whether a theory, an ideology or an alternative universe would be a better way or place to live. If that theory is either impossible or as likely to ever occur as a guy with a big white beard descending from the heavens waving a magic stick and smiting non-believers then it's futile. I choose to live in reality. In the environment that is - not what might in someone else's eyes be the ideal. I find it easier, less frustrating and more productive. And it gives me the opportunity to help people and make a positive difference. A | |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. Invest to save. I borrowed money to go to university which allowed me to get a better job and have a higher salary, allowing me to repay the debt. A council borrows money to build a tunnel, the tolled traffic travelling through it repays the debt. If it didn't borrow the money, it couldn't build it, and the traffic jams would be an hour each side with all the associated cost of that lost productivity. Companies borrow money to buy new equipment that will allow them to expand production and repay that money and to employ more people. Someone starts a job that requires a car to get there, so buys the car on finance and their wages from having that job (which they wouldn't receive if they didn't have that car) are used to repay the borrowing. I was just about to type something along those lines but was busy helping someone source some cheap finance to enable them to expand their business and as a result create employment for others, generate higher profits, provide a wider range of services to their customers in a more efficient way, at cheaper rates due to the economies of scale and in doing so increase their corporation tax liability which boosts the government coffers! But of course that initial borrowing I was helping them with isn't advantageous to anyone!
I'd best try and think of a good example of the advantages borrowing can offer.
A"I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic  | |||
" I missed no point. A man can argue to his death whether a theory, an ideology or an alternative universe would be a better way or place to live. If that theory is either impossible or as likely to ever occur as a guy with a big white beard descending from the heavens waving a magic stick and smiting non-believers then it's futile. I choose to live in reality. In the environment that is - not what might in someone else's eyes be the ideal. I find it easier, less frustrating and more productive. And it gives me the opportunity to help people and make a positive difference. A" You talk about creating jobs, and adding to the governments pot, yet it's all just false economy held up by matchsticks though. The creation of all these jobs during periods of growth is effectively just starting a big game of musical chairs. All well and good until the next crash. If you think that encouraging corporate greed is helping people, you are deluded. I now see why I got your back up though, as a member of the finance industry, you would be utterly superfluous in a world without debt. Re-train, rather than defend an archaic ideology would be my suggestion. By your logic we may as well have stayed in the stone age right? Because the exchange of ideas is bad isn't it, we should stick with reality, whatever that is.. | |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic "Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things. That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate. | |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic
Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things.
That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate. "I got bored of you missing the point I was making, providing no sensible solutions, attempting to patronise me and now I see from your reply to Obi Fox you're resorting to calling people's choice of profession into question. So yes, I'm out. | |||
" I missed no point. A man can argue to his death whether a theory, an ideology or an alternative universe would be a better way or place to live. If that theory is either impossible or as likely to ever occur as a guy with a big white beard descending from the heavens waving a magic stick and smiting non-believers then it's futile. I choose to live in reality. In the environment that is - not what might in someone else's eyes be the ideal. I find it easier, less frustrating and more productive. And it gives me the opportunity to help people and make a positive difference. A You talk about creating jobs, and adding to the governments pot, yet it's all just false economy held up by matchsticks though. The creation of all these jobs during periods of growth is effectively just starting a big game of musical chairs. All well and good until the next crash. If you think that encouraging corporate greed is helping people, you are deluded. I now see why I got your back up though, as a member of the finance industry, you would be utterly superfluous in a world without debt. Re-train, rather than defend an archaic ideology would be my suggestion. By your logic we may as well have stayed in the stone age right? Because the exchange of ideas is bad isn't it, we should stick with reality, whatever that is.. " Actually the case I mentioned was an ethically and environmentally minded company set up originally as a social enterprise looking to help get local people off the dole and provide a viable alternative to multinational corporates producing high cost, low quality goods and support the local economy. But yeah. Everyone in the finance industry is a megalomaniac, capitalist scumbag who needs lining up against a wall and shooting.
A | |||
" The advantage of having a roof over your head. The advantage of being able to get to work. And I know plenty of families for whom amassing £5-6k worth of savings in a couple of years would be both incredibly hard (95% of the population have less than £1000 in savings presently) and frigging no good should their sole means of getting to work, getting the kids to school and looking after elderly relatives go bang tomorrow. But you keep going with your 'no advantages' argument and I'll continue to live in the real world. A Your argument is so fallacious it's hardly worth responding to, but i shall persevere. You do not need to be indebted in order to have a roof over your head or in order to get to work.. That's a simple fact. If a family cannot afford to save how can the afford to make repayments with interest? Do you know the reason no-one has any savings? Because they are too busy paying off debt.. How can you not see that an economy based around debt is inherently pervasive..? You seem to be on the defensive, as though i have accused people who borrow money as being somehow immoral. The culture which encourages debt as normal and necessary is the problem, not those who borrow.. Invest to save. I borrowed money to go to university which allowed me to get a better job and have a higher salary, allowing me to repay the debt. A council borrows money to build a tunnel, the tolled traffic travelling through it repays the debt. If it didn't borrow the money, it couldn't build it, and the traffic jams would be an hour each side with all the associated cost of that lost productivity. Companies borrow money to buy new equipment that will allow them to expand production and repay that money and to employ more people. Someone starts a job that requires a car to get there, so buys the car on finance and their wages from having that job (which they wouldn't receive if they didn't have that car) are used to repay the borrowing. I was just about to type something along those lines but was busy helping someone source some cheap finance to enable them to expand their business and as a result create employment for others, generate higher profits, provide a wider range of services to their customers in a more efficient way, at cheaper rates due to the economies of scale and in doing so increase their corporation tax liability which boosts the government coffers! But of course that initial borrowing I was helping them with isn't advantageous to anyone!
I'd best try and think of a good example of the advantages borrowing can offer.
A.
You miss the point entirely
Capitalism doesn't create jobs for the love of creating jobs.
In a perfect capitalist system the aim would be to have a company which creates wealth without employment, that's the natural evolution of capitalism.
So where does it leave us?
I missed no point.
A man can argue to his death whether a theory, an ideology or an alternative universe would be a better way or place to live.
If that theory is either impossible or as likely to ever occur as a guy with a big white beard descending from the heavens waving a magic stick and smiting non-believers then it's futile.
I choose to live in reality. In the environment that is - not what might in someone else's eyes be the ideal.
I find it easier, less frustrating and more productive.
And it gives me the opportunity to help people and make a positive difference.
A". Please don't take this personal I'm not having a go at you perse. This is current capitalism. It's today, it's how the world works, it's why were in the mess we're in, it has everything to do with all the problems we face. It's got nothing to do with some utopia or anything you keep saying! I'm not denying your trying to do the right thing. What I'm saying is we as a country need to really debate the big picture! | |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic
Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things.
That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate.
I got bored of you missing the point I was making, providing no sensible solutions, attempting to patronise me and now I see from your reply to Obi Fox you're resorting to calling people's choice of profession into question.
So yes, I'm out. "Solutions to what...!? The fact debt is not a good thing?? Your tactic of debate is so disingenuous. You set up a false argument which only you can win. Then if that fails seek to discredit your opponent. I accepted your point, but it has no bearing on the fundamental principle of what I was saying. If you cannot see that then you should have stopped making the same point a while back. | |||
" Actually the case I mentioned was an ethically and environmentally minded company set up originally as a social enterprise looking to help get local people off the dole and provide a viable alternative to multinational corporates producing high cost, low quality goods and support the local economy. But yeah. Everyone in the finance industry is a megalomaniac, capitalist scumbag who needs lining up against a wall and shooting.
A"Firstly i apologise if what i said came across as an attack against you personally it was not intended. You are using a micro example to support a macro argument though. Also missing the point that said company would be better off without the need to borrow in the first place. The fact is capitalism is reaching the end of it's lifespan, and we need to collectively look to finding the next solution. It is human nature to resist change, and also common sense that those in industries which rely on capitalism for their very existence will be all the more resistant. | |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic
Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things.
That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate.
I got bored of you missing the point I was making, providing no sensible solutions, attempting to patronise me and now I see from your reply to Obi Fox you're resorting to calling people's choice of profession into question.
So yes, I'm out.
Solutions to what...!? The fact debt is not a good thing?? Your tactic of debate is so disingenuous. You set up a false argument which only you can win. Then if that fails seek to discredit your opponent.
I accepted your point, but it has no bearing on the fundamental principle of what I was saying. If you cannot see that then you should have stopped making the same point a while back. "Ok, so your fundamental principle is that debt in all its forms is inherently wrong. I have said that IN THE ABSENCE OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES (capitals for emphasis, not shouting) there are ways in which it can be used as a positive thing and provided examples of that. I don't accept that it's inherently wrong because I don't have experience of an alternative to know whether that would be better or worse, either on a theoretical or a practical level. I don't agree that money in and of itself corrupts, it is power which does that. In the society we have, money and power are heavily intertwined. If we didn't live in a capitalist society, power would manifest itself in some other way and people would have another means of oppressing each other. It isn't money as a concept which causes that. Can I turn the question around and ask why you do feel borrowing is inherently wrong and negative, with realistic examples? I'm not being disingenuous or trying to set up an unwinnable argument, that sounds like an exercise in futility anyway. I was asking what the alternative is to capitalism. What should the government do? If you were in charge, what would your approach be? I completely agree that society should debate this more, and consider the future. But I don't see how you've presented examples or evidence based arguments any more than I have to support your position, you've just said it's wrong and it's bad - and that's not what debate means to me. | |||
" Actually the case I mentioned was an ethically and environmentally minded company set up originally as a social enterprise looking to help get local people off the dole and provide a viable alternative to multinational corporates producing high cost, low quality goods and support the local economy. But yeah. Everyone in the finance industry is a megalomaniac, capitalist scumbag who needs lining up against a wall and shooting.
A
Firstly i apologise if what i said came across as an attack against you personally it was not intended.
You are using a micro example to support a macro argument though. Also missing the point that said company would be better off without the need to borrow in the first place.
The fact is capitalism is reaching the end of it's lifespan, and we need to collectively look to finding the next solution. It is human nature to resist change, and also common sense that those in industries which rely on capitalism for their very existence will be all the more resistant. "You do know charities borrow money don't you? As do social enterprises, not-for profit organisations, hospitals, churches........the list goes on - as well as individuals and corporate entities. Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever benefitted or been advantaged by borrowing money in some way, shape or form? Honestly?
A | |||
| |||
| |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic
Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things.
That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate.
I got bored of you missing the point I was making, providing no sensible solutions, attempting to patronise me and now I see from your reply to Obi Fox you're resorting to calling people's choice of profession into question.
So yes, I'm out.
Solutions to what...!? The fact debt is not a good thing?? Your tactic of debate is so disingenuous. You set up a false argument which only you can win. Then if that fails seek to discredit your opponent.
I accepted your point, but it has no bearing on the fundamental principle of what I was saying. If you cannot see that then you should have stopped making the same point a while back.
Ok, so your fundamental principle is that debt in all its forms is inherently wrong. I have said that IN THE ABSENCE OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES (capitals for emphasis, not shouting) there are ways in which it can be used as a positive thing and provided examples of that. I don't accept that it's inherently wrong because I don't have experience of an alternative to know whether that would be better or worse, either on a theoretical or a practical level. I don't agree that money in and of itself corrupts, it is power which does that. In the society we have, money and power are heavily intertwined. If we didn't live in a capitalist society, power would manifest itself in some other way and people would have another means of oppressing each other. It isn't money as a concept which causes that. Can I turn the question around and ask why you do feel borrowing is inherently wrong and negative, with realistic examples?
I'm not being disingenuous or trying to set up an unwinnable argument, that sounds like an exercise in futility anyway. I was asking what the alternative is to capitalism. What should the government do? If you were in charge, what would your approach be?
I completely agree that society should debate this more, and consider the future. But I don't see how you've presented examples or evidence based arguments any more than I have to support your position, you've just said it's wrong and it's bad - and that's not what debate means to me. "Not wrong, unnecessary and ultimately harmful to all of us bar the top 1%. See now you are agreeing with me; there are ways debt can be used to achieve positive things in the absence of a viable alternative. That is a far shot from debt being a positive influence of it's own accord. I am not claiming to have the answers. As i said before, i am merely pointing out that the answers must be sought and we need productive intelligent discussion in order to achieve that. I didn't realise i had to clarify what is wrong with debt.. It is essentially modern slavery which forces normal people into selling their labour in order for societal elites to become exceedingly wealthy. One is effectively indebted before one is even born under our current systems. I don't have the time nor the inclination to source evidence for you, this isn't a peer reviewed academic paper, it's a debate over the internet. If you are genuinely interested, look up global warming, look up global debt in comparison with GWP, look up trade embargoes, look up sweat shops, look at tied aid. Just a hand full of problems caused by capitalism and debt based economies. Then look up the venus project as an example of a resourced based economy. | |||
" You do know charities borrow money don't you? As do social enterprises, not-for profit organisations, hospitals, churches........the list goes on - as well as individuals and corporate entities. Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever benefitted or been advantaged by borrowing money in some way, shape or form? Honestly?
A"Again you are missing the point. Yes i accept 100% that ultimately within the current financial system under which the majority of the world operates it is not just beneficial but essential to borrow money. My problem is with the mechanic of borrowing itself, which only serves to make the rich richer. Do you honestly believe that a charity could not do it's work so much better without financial constraints or the need to borrow..? | |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic
Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things.
That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate.
I got bored of you missing the point I was making, providing no sensible solutions, attempting to patronise me and now I see from your reply to Obi Fox you're resorting to calling people's choice of profession into question.
So yes, I'm out.
Solutions to what...!? The fact debt is not a good thing?? Your tactic of debate is so disingenuous. You set up a false argument which only you can win. Then if that fails seek to discredit your opponent.
I accepted your point, but it has no bearing on the fundamental principle of what I was saying. If you cannot see that then you should have stopped making the same point a while back.
Ok, so your fundamental principle is that debt in all its forms is inherently wrong. I have said that IN THE ABSENCE OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES (capitals for emphasis, not shouting) there are ways in which it can be used as a positive thing and provided examples of that. I don't accept that it's inherently wrong because I don't have experience of an alternative to know whether that would be better or worse, either on a theoretical or a practical level. I don't agree that money in and of itself corrupts, it is power which does that. In the society we have, money and power are heavily intertwined. If we didn't live in a capitalist society, power would manifest itself in some other way and people would have another means of oppressing each other. It isn't money as a concept which causes that. Can I turn the question around and ask why you do feel borrowing is inherently wrong and negative, with realistic examples?
I'm not being disingenuous or trying to set up an unwinnable argument, that sounds like an exercise in futility anyway. I was asking what the alternative is to capitalism. What should the government do? If you were in charge, what would your approach be?
I completely agree that society should debate this more, and consider the future. But I don't see how you've presented examples or evidence based arguments any more than I have to support your position, you've just said it's wrong and it's bad - and that's not what debate means to me.
Not wrong, unnecessary and ultimately harmful to all of us bar the top 1%.
See now you are agreeing with me; there are ways debt can be used to achieve positive things in the absence of a viable alternative. That is a far shot from debt being a positive influence of it's own accord.
I am not claiming to have the answers. As i said before, i am merely pointing out that the answers must be sought and we need productive intelligent discussion in order to achieve that.
I didn't realise i had to clarify what is wrong with debt.. It is essentially modern slavery which forces normal people into selling their labour in order for societal elites to become exceedingly wealthy. One is effectively indebted before one is even born under our current systems.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to source evidence for you, this isn't a peer reviewed academic paper, it's a debate over the internet. If you are genuinely interested, look up global warming, look up global debt in comparison with GWP, look up trade embargoes, look up sweat shops, look at tied aid. Just a hand full of problems caused by capitalism and debt based economies. Then look up the venus project as an example of a resourced based economy. "I will look up the Venus project, that sounds interesting. And thank you - that's the first time you've actually explained what you think is wrong with debt, all of your previous posts just said 'it's wrong', even when asked to elaborate. Never take it as read that someone will know why you think something just because it's obvious to you. I never said we shouldn't debate it at any point in any of my many, many answers today - just that I didn't think the starting point of that debate should be that one thing is automatically wrong. I believe in the possibility of finding better outcomes within the existing system, that's all. You could have saved yourself lots of words and patronising remarks if you'd appreciated that point earlier. On which note, I'm off to enjoy my flashy debt fuelled car and ill gotten capitalist gains without beating myself up about any of it. | |||
"I suppose the difficulty with Steve Keen and many out of the box thinkers is that removing the human behaviour element from a proposal makes it really difficult to see how it could be implemented in practice. People are inherently cautious and resistant to change, that tends to be why we have politicians who work to preserve the status quo, not just because it's in their self interest but because it's what most people seem to want. Whether it's what they would still want if engaged properly in the topic is an interesting question though. " . For years I was a big believer in paying your way in life and having no debt, in a way I still like the principle, that said having read many economists books in recent years it has been a bit of an eye opener in reading how the system works!. I'll be perfectly honest in saying it's not exactly the easiest field to follow and that probably goes someway in showing how little the general public really know about it. | |||
"You don't have to change from capitalism!!. What you have to do is look where it's failing and change the rules to stop or slow it's natural evolution. Now if we had a real debate about the system in its entirety we could at least make someway in accepting debt as a fact of life or we could change it and agree to have less growth?. Until we get to grips with certain facts of monetary policy and energy we will constantly argue about the best way forward!. My original question was a moral question to what might be the best solution? Of course if that is unacceptable you might say all the stuff we see today from immigration to trident is in the end a means to just tinker with a system to move it along an inevitable ledge!. What I mean is we can't repay the debt without undergoing a big loss of growth and seen as were addicted to growth we can't repay the debt, because the debt is funding the growth, it's a catch 22 situation. So maybe it's time for people like Steve keen with his outside the box thinking to be listened to. After all the neo classical economists aren't exactly doing a great job considering the last 50 years!" Ultimately i think we do need to move away from capitalism, not before another hundred or so years of political and social evolution though. The short term solution i agree is to limit or stop the natural progression of Capitalism. That is the Capitalism paradox though is it not? Perpetual growth? In terms your initial question, I think that bailing out the irresponsible spenders is morally still the right thing to do, as they are victims of socialisation and indoctrination. The bankers were the ones who sought to exploit, and yet were rewarded. | |||
" I've got bored of this too, I should probably get back to doing some work, like that tunnel example I quoted which has saved hundreds of thousands of commuters an hour a day they used to waste in traffic
Did you bore yourself perhaps? You literally added nothing other than providing examples of how borrowed money has bought what you perceive to be beneficial things.
That does not even begin to address the mechanics of borrowing itself, which is the entire crux of the debate.
I got bored of you missing the point I was making, providing no sensible solutions, attempting to patronise me and now I see from your reply to Obi Fox you're resorting to calling people's choice of profession into question.
So yes, I'm out.
Solutions to what...!? The fact debt is not a good thing?? Your tactic of debate is so disingenuous. You set up a false argument which only you can win. Then if that fails seek to discredit your opponent.
I accepted your point, but it has no bearing on the fundamental principle of what I was saying. If you cannot see that then you should have stopped making the same point a while back.
Ok, so your fundamental principle is that debt in all its forms is inherently wrong. I have said that IN THE ABSENCE OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES (capitals for emphasis, not shouting) there are ways in which it can be used as a positive thing and provided examples of that. I don't accept that it's inherently wrong because I don't have experience of an alternative to know whether that would be better or worse, either on a theoretical or a practical level. I don't agree that money in and of itself corrupts, it is power which does that. In the society we have, money and power are heavily intertwined. If we didn't live in a capitalist society, power would manifest itself in some other way and people would have another means of oppressing each other. It isn't money as a concept which causes that. Can I turn the question around and ask why you do feel borrowing is inherently wrong and negative, with realistic examples?
I'm not being disingenuous or trying to set up an unwinnable argument, that sounds like an exercise in futility anyway. I was asking what the alternative is to capitalism. What should the government do? If you were in charge, what would your approach be?
I completely agree that society should debate this more, and consider the future. But I don't see how you've presented examples or evidence based arguments any more than I have to support your position, you've just said it's wrong and it's bad - and that's not what debate means to me.
Not wrong, unnecessary and ultimately harmful to all of us bar the top 1%.
See now you are agreeing with me; there are ways debt can be used to achieve positive things in the absence of a viable alternative. That is a far shot from debt being a positive influence of it's own accord.
I am not claiming to have the answers. As i said before, i am merely pointing out that the answers must be sought and we need productive intelligent discussion in order to achieve that.
I didn't realise i had to clarify what is wrong with debt.. It is essentially modern slavery which forces normal people into selling their labour in order for societal elites to become exceedingly wealthy. One is effectively indebted before one is even born under our current systems.
I don't have the time nor the inclination to source evidence for you, this isn't a peer reviewed academic paper, it's a debate over the internet. If you are genuinely interested, look up global warming, look up global debt in comparison with GWP, look up trade embargoes, look up sweat shops, look at tied aid. Just a hand full of problems caused by capitalism and debt based economies. Then look up the venus project as an example of a resourced based economy. "The Venus Project website has a 'Gift Shop'!
$24.99 for his book!
How very anti-capitalist.
And you'd think it would be more environmentally friendly to promote the Kindle version as it's not killing trees and only $9.99
But hey - all sales support the project and i'm sure it saves them borrowing any money!
A | |||
" Again you are missing the point. Yes i accept 100% that ultimately within the current financial system under which the majority of the world operates it is not just beneficial but essential to borrow money. My problem is with the mechanic of borrowing itself, which only serves to make the rich richer. Do you honestly believe that a charity could not do it's work so much better without financial constraints or the need to borrow..?" But a) surely majority of money lent isn't from some evil, faceless individual, cackling in their gold-plated tower, but institutions such as our pension funds. The money they make going not on caviar, but on our future pensions? And b) no-one is forced to take out debt, so it is not slavery. We make a balanced and considered decision that it is in our own best interests, or we simply don't take it. Or that's what we do. As such, since our starting points are so disparate, I can't see how we can ever agree on an end point. | |||
"I suppose the difficulty with Steve Keen and many out of the box thinkers is that removing the human behaviour element from a proposal makes it really difficult to see how it could be implemented in practice. People are inherently cautious and resistant to change, that tends to be why we have politicians who work to preserve the status quo, not just because it's in their self interest but because it's what most people seem to want. Whether it's what they would still want if engaged properly in the topic is an interesting question though. . For years I was a big believer in paying your way in life and having no debt, in a way I still like the principle, that said having read many economists books in recent years it has been a bit of an eye opener in reading how the system works!. I'll be perfectly honest in saying it's not exactly the easiest field to follow and that probably goes someway in showing how little the general public really know about it." I find lots of economic theory quite difficult to understand, but well-explained it is doable. I don't think most people have the inclination to try and understand though, even when you look at the election campaign and some of the really niche, targeted promises from most parties, it's clearly because people do vote with their own self interest in mind. At the current time, most people are doing ok from the system so they've no real motivation to try to understand the intricacies of a debate about the alternative. | |||
" I will look up the Venus project, that sounds interesting. And thank you - that's the first time you've actually explained what you think is wrong with debt, all of your previous posts just said 'it's wrong', even when asked to elaborate. Never take it as read that someone will know why you think something just because it's obvious to you. I never said we shouldn't debate it at any point in any of my many, many answers today - just that I didn't think the starting point of that debate should be that one thing is automatically wrong. I believe in the possibility of finding better outcomes within the existing system, that's all. You could have saved yourself lots of words and patronising remarks if you'd appreciated that point earlier. On which note, I'm off to enjoy my flashy debt fuelled car and ill gotten capitalist gains without beating myself up about any of it. " The reason it is the first time i have explained, is because it is the first time you have asked. We had our wires crossed initially. You are right that common sense does not exist though, and that is perhaps where i went wrong. I wasn't being intentionally patronising, tone can be easily misconstrued through text. I could say the same of several of your messages. Anyway i'm glad we are now on the same page. | |||
" Again you are missing the point. Yes i accept 100% that ultimately within the current financial system under which the majority of the world operates it is not just beneficial but essential to borrow money. My problem is with the mechanic of borrowing itself, which only serves to make the rich richer. Do you honestly believe that a charity could not do it's work so much better without financial constraints or the need to borrow..? But a) surely majority of money lent isn't from some evil, faceless individual, cackling in their gold-plated tower, but institutions such as our pension funds. The money they make going not on caviar, but on our future pensions? And b) no-one is forced to take out debt, so it is not slavery. We make a balanced and considered decision that it is in our own best interests, or we simply don't take it. Or that's what we do. As such, since our starting points are so disparate, I can't see how we can ever agree on an end point." . No lol. Only a tiny fraction of money is actually borrowed from anyone. That's what I meaning when I said it's hard to get your head round it. 90% of money is created from nothing, it's just created from moving a 1 or a 2 into another column in a bank ledger. This reminds me of Monty python. Were not borrowing from anyone, were borrowing from our unborn children.. You've got to learn to think for yourself.. Yes we've got to learn to think for ourselves | |||
" I will look up the Venus project, that sounds interesting. And thank you - that's the first time you've actually explained what you think is wrong with debt, all of your previous posts just said 'it's wrong', even when asked to elaborate. Never take it as read that someone will know why you think something just because it's obvious to you. I never said we shouldn't debate it at any point in any of my many, many answers today - just that I didn't think the starting point of that debate should be that one thing is automatically wrong. I believe in the possibility of finding better outcomes within the existing system, that's all. You could have saved yourself lots of words and patronising remarks if you'd appreciated that point earlier. On which note, I'm off to enjoy my flashy debt fuelled car and ill gotten capitalist gains without beating myself up about any of it. The reason it is the first time i have explained, is because it is the first time you have asked. We had our wires crossed initially. You are right that common sense does not exist though, and that is perhaps where i went wrong. I wasn't being intentionally patronising, tone can be easily misconstrued through text. I could say the same of several of your messages. Anyway i'm glad we are now on the same page. " . Bollocks you've just started thinking of her topless in an open top  ..... Or maybe that's just me | |||
" I will look up the Venus project, that sounds interesting. And thank you - that's the first time you've actually explained what you think is wrong with debt, all of your previous posts just said 'it's wrong', even when asked to elaborate. Never take it as read that someone will know why you think something just because it's obvious to you. I never said we shouldn't debate it at any point in any of my many, many answers today - just that I didn't think the starting point of that debate should be that one thing is automatically wrong. I believe in the possibility of finding better outcomes within the existing system, that's all. You could have saved yourself lots of words and patronising remarks if you'd appreciated that point earlier. On which note, I'm off to enjoy my flashy debt fuelled car and ill gotten capitalist gains without beating myself up about any of it. The reason it is the first time i have explained, is because it is the first time you have asked. We had our wires crossed initially. You are right that common sense does not exist though, and that is perhaps where i went wrong. I wasn't being intentionally patronising, tone can be easily misconstrued through text. I could say the same of several of your messages. Anyway i'm glad we are now on the same page. " We're 100% NOT on the same page, but you're now hovering near the door of my library. | |||
" But a) surely majority of money lent isn't from some evil, faceless individual, cackling in their gold-plated tower, but institutions such as our pension funds. The money they make going not on caviar, but on our future pensions? And b) no-one is forced to take out debt, so it is not slavery. We make a balanced and considered decision that it is in our own best interests, or we simply don't take it. Or that's what we do. As such, since our starting points are so disparate, I can't see how we can ever agree on an end point." In response to A) ultimately yes that is exactly where all loans come from. Whether right or wrong certain people have manoeuvred themselves into positions of immense economic power. Do you accept the whole 1% thing or not? If you do, then of course the majority of money lent, belongs to those people, and their ultimate aim under capitalism is to make more money. B) I'm not talking about personal debt here, i'm talking about public debt. As you said yourself earlier, your children will pay, that is exactly what I mean. | |||
" We're 100% NOT on the same page, but you're now hovering near the door of my library. "Ok thanks for clearing up the confusion .. | |||
" Bollocks you've just started thinking of her topless in an open top ..... Or maybe that's just me "I wouldn't dare, i'd be accused of sexism then. | |||
| |||
" Bollocks you've just started thinking of her topless in an open top ..... Or maybe that's just me
I wouldn't dare, i'd be accused of sexism then. "Don't worry, it's a coupe | |||
"In summary, HgNe, I think Debt is like fire: It is a great servant, but a terrible master. We must ensure it works for us, not we for it. So we must ensure we don't borrow too much. I also think the Coalition has listened to the arguments of giving money to the poor, and have effectively done this via the tax system, rather than writing off the debts of the feckless. Happy with my beliefs, and confident they do not tally with Ed Milliband's, I cannot vote for him. Where I really struggle, is why anyone so against Debt could vote for a party so commited to increasing it? " Your philosophy is sound, however in practice we are working for debt, and no party can change that. We have a broken system, politically and economically. I do not believe labour are the answer, not by a long shot. However the vulnerable will be those who suffer if the conservatives get in, and I feel obligated to limit that. | |||
| |||
" Bollocks you've just started thinking of her topless in an open top ..... Or maybe that's just me
I wouldn't dare, i'd be accused of sexism then.
Don't worry, it's a coupe ". Now that's bad debt | |||
"Were not borrowing from anyone 90% of the money is just created from borrowing!! Or to think of it another way 90% of all money you touch is somebody else's debt. Worse still the other 10% is state debt which is borrowed from an unborn generation "Why do you seem so shocked by the concept of fractional reserve banking? Want to really be shocked money and debt is actually just a representation of current and future work. | |||
" Do you accept the whole 1% thing or not?" That UK private debt is owned by 1% of the population, who are seeking world domination? No. Most of it is held by pension funds and, ultimately is ours. "B) I'm not talking about personal debt here, i'm talking about public debt. As you said yourself earlier, your children will pay, that is exactly what I mean. " This whole thread seems to be switching between private and public.debt each time it suits. I was answering your posts to ObiF and Anna, where you were discussing personal, private debt, for buying houses, cars etc | |||
"Were not borrowing from anyone 90% of the money is just created from borrowing!! Or to think of it another way 90% of all money you touch is somebody else's debt. Worse still the other 10% is state debt which is borrowed from an unborn generation
Why do you seem so shocked by the concept of fractional reserve banking?
Want to really be shocked money and debt is actually just a representation of current and future work.
". I'm not shocked I started the dammed thread, I'm trying to get the point over that were not borrowing money off anybody! Lol | |||
" Do you accept the whole 1% thing or not? That UK private debt is owned by 1% of the population, who are seeking world domination? No. Most of it is held by pension funds and, ultimately is ours. B) I'm not talking about personal debt here, i'm talking about public debt. As you said yourself earlier, your children will pay, that is exactly what I mean. This whole thread seems to be switching between private and public.debt each time it suits. I was answering your posts to ObiF and Anna, where you were discussing personal, private debt, for buying houses, cars etc " Right ok in the interest of absolute clarity, my stance is thus; money flows from the ground up, we have now got to a stage where the vast majority of wealth is held by only the top 1% of the population. This is reinforced by a fractional reserve banking system which relies on debt in order to create credit. If so, then yes all debt imaginary or real only serves the people who control the supply. I do not think there is some evil conspiracy at work, just the very nature of capitalism. State debt and personal debt are not two separate entities though are they, they are interlinked. Practically it is micro versus macro. My point to Anna/ObiF was that a culture which promotes borrowing in order to maintain a consumer lifestyle is adding to the macro problem of global debt. | |||
" Do you accept the whole 1% thing or not? That UK private debt is owned by 1% of the population, who are seeking world domination? No. Most of it is held by pension funds and, ultimately is ours. B) I'm not talking about personal debt here, i'm talking about public debt. As you said yourself earlier, your children will pay, that is exactly what I mean. This whole thread seems to be switching between private and public.debt each time it suits. I was answering your posts to ObiF and Anna, where you were discussing personal, private debt, for buying houses, cars etc Right ok in the interest of absolute clarity, my stance is thus; money flows from the ground up, we have now got to a stage where the vast majority of wealth is held by only the top 1% of the population. This is reinforced by a fractional reserve banking system which relies on debt in order to create credit. If so, then yes all debt imaginary or real only serves the people who control the supply. I do not think there is some evil conspiracy at work, just the very nature of capitalism. State debt and personal debt are not two separate entities though are they, they are interlinked. Practically it is micro versus macro. My point to Anna/ObiF was that a culture which promotes borrowing in order to maintain a consumer lifestyle is adding to the macro problem of global debt. " Just to point out to you here you are aware that you are within the top 5% percent right? Your phone is several years of the yearly wage of the majority of people on this planet. You want to look at the person who is stripping away the wealth from the poor taking their resources, taking the food from their children's mouths and polluting their drinking water? Just look in the mirror. | |||
" Do you accept the whole 1% thing or not? That UK private debt is owned by 1% of the population, who are seeking world domination? No. Most of it is held by pension funds and, ultimately is ours. B) I'm not talking about personal debt here, i'm talking about public debt. As you said yourself earlier, your children will pay, that is exactly what I mean. This whole thread seems to be switching between private and public.debt each time it suits. I was answering your posts to ObiF and Anna, where you were discussing personal, private debt, for buying houses, cars etc Right ok in the interest of absolute clarity, my stance is thus; money flows from the ground up, we have now got to a stage where the vast majority of wealth is held by only the top 1% of the population. This is reinforced by a fractional reserve banking system which relies on debt in order to create credit. If so, then yes all debt imaginary or real only serves the people who control the supply. I do not think there is some evil conspiracy at work, just the very nature of capitalism. State debt and personal debt are not two separate entities though are they, they are interlinked. Practically it is micro versus macro. My point to Anna/ObiF was that a culture which promotes borrowing in order to maintain a consumer lifestyle is adding to the macro problem of global debt. Just to point out to you here you are aware that you are within the top 5% percent right? Your phone is several years of the yearly wage of the majority of people on this planet. You want to look at the person who is stripping away the wealth from the poor taking their resources, taking the food from their children's mouths and polluting their drinking water? Just look in the mirror." . He probably doesn't own his phone.... It's on credit | |||
" Do you accept the whole 1% thing or not? That UK private debt is owned by 1% of the population, who are seeking world domination? No. Most of it is held by pension funds and, ultimately is ours. B) I'm not talking about personal debt here, i'm talking about public debt. As you said yourself earlier, your children will pay, that is exactly what I mean. This whole thread seems to be switching between private and public.debt each time it suits. I was answering your posts to ObiF and Anna, where you were discussing personal, private debt, for buying houses, cars etc Right ok in the interest of absolute clarity, my stance is thus; money flows from the ground up, we have now got to a stage where the vast majority of wealth is held by only the top 1% of the population. This is reinforced by a fractional reserve banking system which relies on debt in order to create credit. If so, then yes all debt imaginary or real only serves the people who control the supply. I do not think there is some evil conspiracy at work, just the very nature of capitalism. State debt and personal debt are not two separate entities though are they, they are interlinked. Practically it is micro versus macro. My point to Anna/ObiF was that a culture which promotes borrowing in order to maintain a consumer lifestyle is adding to the macro problem of global debt. Just to point out to you here you are aware that you are within the top 5% percent right? Your phone is several years of the yearly wage of the majority of people on this planet. You want to look at the person who is stripping away the wealth from the poor taking their resources, taking the food from their children's mouths and polluting their drinking water? Just look in the mirror." I am fully aware... I would direct that comment to the people i have been debating the benefits of capitalism with.. Also the difference between the top 5% and the top 1% is not negligible.. | |||
| |||
