I1L2T3 Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 You seem to have an incredibly shaky grasp on some pretty fundamental issues there Wildact. One thing that is correct is without debt the system would die. We have a debt-based economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Sort of. We have a growth based economy which enables us to have debt, but as mentioned previously there is absolutely nothing wrong with debt and credit per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I1L2T3 you're right. Cavegirl, how about people just cut their cloth accordingly? Sorry Tony, I just don't believe that 99% of people are on this earth to enhance in a slave-like fashion the coffers of the top 1%. Inequality is a terrible thing in society- it robs people not only of their productive and creative wealth, not only of their education and full potential, but also of their dignity and self-worth. This is what a UK government report states: Executive summary : the key facts The last few decades have seen wealth created on an unprecedented scale … • The total value of personal wealth in the UK in 1999 was £2,752 billion. (According to one report it was £9 trillion in 2010) • In 1979 this figure was under £500 billion. …. yet not all people are benefiting equally. Wealth inequality has increased … • 93% of all wealth in 1999 was held by the top 50 per cent of the population. • In 1999 the top 10% of the population own over half of personal wealth. • Between 1988 and 1999 the top 1% of the population have increased their share of personal wealth from 17% to 23%, suggesting that wealth inequality is worsening. • Currently the top 2.4m households own assets worth about £1,300bn [note that this is just under 50% of the value of all personal wealth], while the bottom 12m households own assets of £150m. http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/projects/Wealth%20Distribution.pdf The Telegraph stated that: For the first time in seven years, the average person's total wealth – made up of the equity they own in their home, savings, cars, pensions and any stocks and shares they own – fell during 2008. The average household wealth per person dropped by a substantial 15 per cent from £123,000 to £107,00, according to the Office for National Statistics, which published the latest instalment of its social trends report. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7567457/Average-persons-wealth-fell-by-16000-ONS-said.html So it would appear that the cloth was cut back then and has continued to be cut ever since. How much of a cut to the working and middle classes in favour of the elites would finally make you happy Tony? … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The coalition were. It doesn't seem to be fashionable any more. You will have to point out where the coalition have said Britain was going through a uniquely British Labour-induced economic meltdown while the rest of the world was, and still is, battling the global financial crisis, because I can’t find anything or remember hearing them say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Sorry Tony, I just don't believe that 99% of people are on this earth to enhance in a slave-like fashion the coffers of the top 1%. Inequality is a terrible thing in society- it robs people not only of their productive and creative wealth, not only of their education and full potential, but also of their dignity and self-worth. Did I say that they are? But the facts are that W Micawber is as right now as he was then. If a big telly and an extra week away at half term are beyond your means that you spend sixpence more than you have, you are living beyond your means... no matter how much the nasty bloke across the road has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 It was the easy credit supplied by the banks that drove the economy, so Gordon miracle economy had nothing to do with him, unless the bank only lent money at low interest rates because he encouraged it. The bank of England had a remit to control inflation by increasing interest rates, guess what Gordon took the most inflationary item out the inflation figures which allowed a house bubble to inflate. The housing bubble and low interest rates according to you was nothing to do with Gordon therefore the miracle economy was nothing to do with Gordon. But we all know differently both were everything to do with Gordon and so was the crash when it came, he isn’t the only person to blame but he played a big part. If you blame the banks for the crash you will have to blame them for the good times as well. We got bad times because of the good times, which weren't actually good times at all. It just felt that way to a lot of people who insanely were happy to maintain their lifestyle with endless debt. I never said it was nothing to do with Gordon Brown. I'm as angry as anybody with the way the house price bubble inflated. And it hasn't burst in this country yet either. Same with personal debt - almost total collective madness. When you talk about credit householders take some of the blame certainly. But what interests me most is what happened to that credit once it was created. How was it allowed to be bundled up into exotic products, traded globally again and again. How were banks allowed to have such low capital ratios, how were they allowed to leverage so spectacularly? Think of it as an inverted pyramid - the household debt the tip at the bottom with layer on layer of leverage on top. The question is how could that have been controlled? The answer is that it couldn't have been easily. There is nothing that can regulate shadow banks trading globally under the radar. Nothing that controls the interaction between mainstream banks and shadow banks. No global controls. It was beyond the control of governments at the time. It still is beyond control now. If it hadn't been a boom based on property and personal debt it would have been something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 You will have to point out where the coalition have said Britain was going through a uniquely British Labour-induced economic meltdown while the rest of the world was, and still is, battling the global financial crisis, because I can’t find anything or remember hearing them say that. It was all Labour's fault. Labour had maxed out the nation's credit cards. It was a mess etc... etc... etc... Except that everything would have looked a whole lot different (granted still not brilliant) without the crisis in 2007. That is the gap - the failure to acknowledge the role of the banking crisis in our recession. And if that isn't acknowledged and you have a wasted year of political point scoring it leaves things in a really bad place when reality knocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Did I say that they are? But the facts are that W Micawber is as right now as he was then. If a big telly and an extra week away at half term are beyond your means that you spend sixpence more than you have, you are living beyond your means... no matter how much the nasty bloke across the road has. I don't tend to blame individuals for this problem Tony (unless they've been instrumental in specific corrupt practices), I blame the entire system. I have much more than a woman living in a slum in India, that doesn't make me nasty, it makes me a product of the system I live in. I don't hate the elites, but I do hate the system that they've created and perpetuated to serve their own interests. I'd happily live next to an ex-banker and invite him/her round for dinner if we lived together in a non-monetary based free and equal society. Just think what we might have acheived as a species if the results of our productivity hadn't been syphoned off or limited by elites in order to pay for their decadent lifestyles and endless wars. We might be regularly travelling to the edges of our universe using renewable energy right now if scientific research wasn't hampered by monetary considerations. We might have cured cancer if medical research didn't rely upon monetary funding. People love to espouse how money makes the world go around, how it frees people, but I don't buy this (excuse the pun). Money is just a symbol of debt and slavery. It's people and technology that are truly productive in society and, as any recession will show you, that productivity is only hampered by a debt that can never be payed because it comes with interest. We shouldn't be on this ridiculous treadmill of believing in infinite economic growth, infinite Ipad upgrades, infinite toxic waste on a planet with finite resources. Check out what happened on Easter Island 600 years ago if you believe that is a viable system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Sort of. We have a growth based economy which enables us to have debt, but as mentioned previously there is absolutely nothing wrong with debt and credit per se. Growth??????? we did have it but NOT since the ConDems got in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabuckle Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 funny thing is you all think that the storm is just going to blow over and in 10 years we will be looking back on these days like it was a close shave. THE WORLD ECONOMY IS FCUKED!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.