Swampster Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Excellent post. x Agreed, this forum needs a like button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blades89 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Its a bad one. The essentials of life are going up, food, heating petrol so people have less spare cash. YOu have to buy food, pay the taxes, heat your home and put petrol in your car for starters. If you are a car owner, your insurance will be on the up, so less spare cash to spend in local businesses. The local business has less money coming in because food comes before anything else, and unless your business is an essential, then you are not going to get people spending their money in your business. The business - then pays less tax, and the business is then less likely to create additional jobs. So people simply have less spare cash to spend. I hear petrol os about to go though the £1.50 barrier due to the oil company going bust in essex and there being shortages. If that happens people will pull in even more. Luxury items such as Holidays will be up the creak this year, as I guess will car dealers (people keeping hold of the old 08 model for a bit longer), hairdressers will feel the squeese. Nobody is spending, everyones businesses is going through the floor. Its not looking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Not really. We just need a system that doesn't give anyone the right to create money out of thin air and loan it to us We had one, it was called the Classical Gold Standard. Look at this chart (link) from a 2003 House of Commons paper. It shows that the purchasing power of the British pound remained practically unchanged between 1815 and 1914, the period of the Classical Gold Standard. (Loss of purchasing power is of course inflation, so there was practically no inflation during this period.) People often say we need an expending money supply to "grow" the economy. They seem to blank out a little event that occurred during the period of the Classical Gold Standard. A little something called the Industrial Revolution. When Britain acquired an empire and became the "workshop of the world". During the past 80 years we've had an infinitely expandable money supply. And look what's happened to Britain. It's difficult to imagine a return to any kind of gold standard, even though it's frequently discussed (it's currently an issue in the U.S. presidential election). Many central banks have foolishly sold off their gold (apart from dumbos like China and India, who are buying the stuff hand over fist, despite China itself being the world's largest gold producer). What idiots India and China are. I mean, look how they've run their economies. Oh, wait.... In 1999, Gordon Brown took the decision to sell half of the United Kingdom’s gold reserves into the bottom of the market - where gold was at its lowest price in 20 years. Over 17 auctions, the gold was sold between 1999 and 2002. Shortly after the sales, the price of gold soared. Gold is now worth approximately three times [actually 6, see below] more than what it was at the time of the sale (Guardian). Not only was the decision to sell the gold questioned, the auction method added insult to injury. The auctions and amount of gold to be sold were pre-announced, meaning investors sold their gold in anticipation of being able to buy even cheaper gold (the more that gets sold into the market, the lower the price is, due to supply and demand) (Market Oracle). Gordon Brown was warned against the gold sale and the chosen auction method by the Bank of England, among other experts (The Times). The sale was so infamous that the phrase ‘Brown Bottom’ was coined to describe the event and is recognised internationally (Wikipedia). LINK The average price McRuin got was $275.6, the price is currently around $1700, so the actual increase is 6x, not 3x as in the article quoted above (dated 2010). It's monumental idiocy like this that means that central banks are not in a position to return to a gold standard (not that they want to to anyway, they won't give up their printy printy powers without a fight). Too much gold is now in private/foreign hands. Gordon Brown Cost the UK £10bn in Gold Sales Bullion bungle that cost us £600 each Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdenny Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 recession is cyclical in economy. its happens time to time in the economy, and it doesn't mean that it will never recover from the recession. actually it is opportunity to correct the basics and grew better then earlier for any particular business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Not really. We just need a system that doesn't give anyone the right to create money out of thin air and loan it to us But... to implement this would cause an initial economic disaster, and it would be political suicide for any politician who suggested it or tried to implement it... even though long term it would (likely) take us to a more stable overall economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Who is the "WE"? We start the boom do we? Well done, for swallowing the propaganda lies so convincingly! We, as in ordinary people do not have a say is sod all. Who controls the money supply controls the economy, the people, the society. SO do WE control the money supply? Do we print money till one needs double the amount to buy the same things? DO WE??? People start booms by spending too much money and usually money that they borrow, when they borrow money to spend the economy can grow and more often than not it grows out of control, governments encourage it as do banks but they didn't buy houses at ridiculous prices and a boat load of other stuff, that was the population. If the population didn't borrow and didn't spend then the economy probably wouldn’t grow and may end up in recession and when the population spends and borrows the economy grows. The problem is in making sure the population doesn’t borrow too much and spend too much. Politicians and banks didn't do a very good job of controlling the spending of the population, no doubt if they had tried to control our spending the population would have complained. So yes, we but not all are to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Demon Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 The whole ethos and design of capitalism and the monetary system is dead on its ass and is only clashing and fighting in itself, something has got to give, it has been going on far too long and it is a million years beyond repair, its ruined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 The economy always goes in cycles. It grows, then shrinks a bit, then grows, then shrinks a bit... Do you not think that it's different this time? We've had a debt-fueled boom of consumerism and government spending. We've let go of our manufacturing industries in order to gamble and speculate on the movement of share prices. We've lost our fundamental ability to pay our way in the world and the answer is not to load our children and grandchildren with ever more of our debt. People talk about kick-starting the economy, a stimulus package, and "solving" the economic crisis. Well, the economy is not a stalled motorcycle. It's not a heart suffering from an irregular beat an in need of an external stimulus. It's not a Rubik's cube waiting for someone to come up with "the solution". No, it's more like a huge ocean liner that's been sailing in the wrong direction and it's going to take a long time to turn it around. * Mark Oxner uses the ship metaphor in his campaign to run for Congress - There are no quick wins. It's going to take hard work over a long period. We need to fundamentally rebalance the economy so that entrepreneurs, investors and employees all get their fair share of the profits for their contribution to a successful company. We need to tax the speculators who have no interest in the long term future of a company, only the money they can make on the short term movement of a share price. We need to stop pretending that Capital Gains is somehow different from income. We need to tax all income in the same way as earned income from selling your labour. The whole ethos and design of capitalism and the monetary system is dead on its ass and is only clashing and fighting in itself, something has got to give, it has been going on far too long and it is a million years beyond repair, its ruined. We are in a very bad place - especially with our "democratic" system which, like stock market speculators, has to focus on very short term results. The answer isn't to elect governments for longer though. It's to use "The Wisdom of Crowds" and introduce direct democracy. We shouldn't be voting for representatives who are subject to the party whips and the vested interests that control the parties. We should vote for ideas, policies and actions. We shouldn't have to make a choice between Red or Blue once every four years. We have the technology to widen participation in real direct democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Do you not think that it's different this time? We've had a debt-fueled boom of consumerism and government spending. That's what we usually have before a recession. We've let go of our manufacturing industries in order to gamble and speculate on the movement of share prices. We have a stronger manufacturing sector than we've ever had in the past. That's clearly nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speed Demon Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Can you not see the inherent violence and scarcity in having to barter something and get something in return, take this example... What about you taking another persons chickens in return for your bail of hey. Those chickens of his may have been his last 2 chickens for the week, meaning he has to live in scarcity and without food thus meaning him and his family will starve. You have to see the chain reaction in all this, while he is starving he will most likely be angry and steel someone elses chickens, thus leaving them without, if you actually see between the lines you will see I am right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.