FairDooz Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Fact is, left and right, state or private have all contributed to this country's present mess - but we as borrowers aren't entirely blameless, either. True. I once saw a play at the Lyceum (sorry, I can't remember the title but I think it was by Arthur Miller). One of the themes was mental illness and one of the lines that really stuck with me was something like "we don't get sick as individuals, we get sick as societies" There's a madness in "the west" where we've come to believe that we can be masters of financial engineering rather than traditional engineering (as we've all understood it within the real economy). Our sickness, our madness, our obsession with the intangible, the virtual, the financial will be over soon enough, but maybe not without revolution. (It may spread from Greece or Spain or Italy, who knows?) but when there's 50% youth unemployment and no hope of a better future, you can be sure that the forces of anger, envy and a sense of injustice will soon come into play. The rich caused the financial crisis did they? Or was it the peddlars of dreams of easy money and the gullible who bought that dream despite their better instincts? Who is blameless? PS bailing out Spain (or their banks???) to the tune of €100bn. Is this the answer? Or just another desperate convulsion in the death of capitalism? (no I'm not advocating the other extreme, just the wisdom we all have and seldom use, and are unable to employ in a divisive political system) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Is "rich people" in this context a euphemism for something else? Just scapegoats? I'm sure an awful lot of rich people had nothing to do with the world's economic woes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retired Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Has anyone read the book Talk and grow rich? If they have there was achapter about opm (other peoples money). It goes on to say that many a wealthy person has got rich by borrowing money. It is not a bad deal. You borrow money off a bank (they lend you other peoples money) and in return they make a profit by charging interest. For us that are fortunate to have bought our own property, it usually starts by borrowing money ( a mortgage) and they get it back with interest. They profit and the home owner usually (not always) profits by an investment that keeps it's value (usually) and eventually works out cheaper than renting. win-win situation all round (for most). So yes mortgagees are partly to blame for the current crisis but it will sort itself out given time as it has in the past. Its the poor sods who are renting I feel sorry for. Some rents are so high they could pay for a mortgage cheaper. If only they had a deposit and wasn't in a temp employment job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 The fact we have mega corporations is the fault of the people, it’s the people that want the cheap stuff these corporation sell, the people are ultimately to blame for buying stuff they don't need, for looking to buy it as cheaply as possible and for electing governments that don't act in their best interests. No, it's not the fault of the people, it's a result of big companies buying out little companies, (often, but not always, little companies that do much the same as the big companies,) thus reducing the competition as well as increasing your own market share. Example: Wallmart buys up Asda, Asda can't compete on price with Netto, so Asda buys up Netto. Farmers no longer have 3 supermarkets they can sell to, but 1, so that 1 supermarket has a monopoly and can dictate the price to the farmers. He's in a position to pay as little as possible and pocket the difference. Also because he now has no competition, he can charge as much as he wants to the customer so puts his prices up, and the customer has no choice but to pay it, and again he pockets the extra. The farmers get poorer, the customer gets poorer, Wallmart gets richer. Supermarkets was perhaps a bad choice to use as an example, cause we still have the big 4 (but for how long?) but you get the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 No, it's not the fault of the people, it's a result of big companies buying out little companies, (often, but not always, little companies that do much the same as the big companies,) thus reducing the competition as well as increasing your own market share. Example: Wallmart buys up Asda, Asda can't compete on price with Netto, so Asda buys up Netto. Farmers no longer have 3 supermarkets they can sell to, but 1, so that 1 supermarket has a monopoly and can dictate the price to the farmers. He's in a position to pay as little as possible and pocket the difference. Also because he now has no competition, he can charge as much as he wants to the customer so puts his prices up, and the customer has no choice but to pay it, and again he pockets the extra. The farmers get poorer, the customer gets poorer, Wallmart gets richer. Supermarkets was perhaps a bad choice to use as an example, cause we still have the big 4 (but for how long?) but you get the idea. Everything that a supermarket sells can be bought at a more expensive price from a local shop, we choose supermarkets for price and convenience and supermarkets react to what people want. If everyone refused to shop at a supermarket then they would disappear, we won’t stop shopping in them because they are what we want, they exist because we want them to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Everything that a supermarket sells can be bought at a more expensive price from a local shop, we choose supermarkets for price and convenience and supermarkets react to what people want. If everyone refused to shop at a supermarket then they would disappear, we won’t stop shopping in them because they are what we want, they exist because we want them to exist. I agree we want the best price, and in these straightened times some people have no choice but to go for the lowest price, - it's that, or not eat. Market forces have always been at work, but used to be about things like quality as well as cost. But as far as supermarkets are concerned that low cost is always at someone else's expense. I think people should at least be aware of that. We lose our local shops and diversity at our peril. When they are all gone, the supermarkets will have us where they want us. And mark my words, prices will start to rise, and there will be nowhere else to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 One of the problems is that the people who are suffering most yet did least to cause this situation are impotent to do anything about it. ...and always have been. They even get the 'little people' such as soldiers and police to do their bidding and keep them safe. And we all know what happened last time there was mass protests dont we. Yes, the scum of the earth crawled out of their holes and went a-looting. Only the very strong should advocate 'taking to the streets'. They'll come for your property first - not the MPs and bankers (who caused all this) who have secure boltholes, protected by the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 You misremember a lot of stuff as well: The Education Act 1944 provided milk - a third of a pint a day - in schools to all children in the United Kingdom under the age of 18 until 1968 when Harold Wilson’s Labour Government withdrew free milk from secondary schools. You didn't get it right about deregulating the banks either but loonatics like you don't care about facts, just lazy rhetoric so please feel free to carry on. Yawn. I thought all this was hammered out before? The only person who seems to know about this is John Redwood and he provided no evidence or could even substantiate the claim in any form. On taxation, here's something fron the BBC website written by a reader who did is research and is naming names. 75.steve 25th June 2012 - 16:21 54 Billionaires living in the UK pay just £13 million tax a year between them £11 Million of this is paid by just 2 of them Dyson and Rowling CE0's award themselves 12% rises £45 Billion in personal and corporate tax goes uncollected while the government makes 10,000 tax collectors redundant The richest get a 5% tax cut And this muppet identifies the poor young as the problem. Election now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18575453?postId=112880991#comment_112880991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 £45 Billion in personal and corporate tax goes uncollected while the government makes 10,000 tax collectors redundant With that kind of incompetence I would have sacked them and not made them redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 With that kind of incompetence I would have sacked them and not made them redundant. Then nobody would be able to collect taxation, perhaps that's what you want? If you underfund and understaff services, what do you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.