studentbob Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 [/b] I can remember when 'the hoarding of wealth' was called saving for a rainy day, and was seen as a good thing.... Saving is a good thing in a sustainable economy. It should be an enabler to the more desirable elements of the Thatcher ideology; personal responsibilty, economic freedom for all individuals. However, it was never going to work because the incentives for using ones money to make even more money by whatever means possible is not sustainable. It is not productive and it is not redistributive. Therefore the general direction of the wealth will always be upwards. The economy needs to change if we want to acheive the economic freedom that Thatcher promised so many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Everyone, there is only a need growth in the economy whilst the population is increasing, fewer jobs in the Uk means less people coming here, so hopefully the population will stop increasing and start decreasing. We could stay in recession indefinitely proving the population also decreases. Housing will become more affordable with fewer people wanting them, and with lower housing costs your wage will go further so no need for a pay rise. So you don't believe that a society should aim to raise it's living standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Most banks and large companies make money for the share holders and the share holders are ordinary people, everyone can own part of the bank or PLC. If they don't make money they won't employ people and pensions funds will fail. The majority of shareholders aren't ordinary people. The shareholders are a mix of individuals, pension funds, insurance funds, mutual investment funds and foreign investors such as state owned investment funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 So you don't believe that a society should aim to raise it's living standards? Living standards won't increase with population expansion which results in unemployment and smaller and more expensive dwellings, but it will increase if we cut unemployment, immigration and the size of the population. So yes I think we should strive for a better standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The majority of shareholders aren't ordinary people. The shareholders are a mix of individuals, pension funds, insurance funds, mutual investment funds and foreign investors such as state owned investment funds. So ordinary people don't have pension funds, insurance funds, mutual investment, if not you are correct if they do then I am correct. Ordinary people benefit when a company makes a profit, these large companies also pay most of the tax which funds the services we receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentbob Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Most banks and large companies make money for the share holders and the share holders are ordinary people, everyone can own part of the bank or PLC. If they don't make money they won't employ people and pensions funds will fail. That just goes to show the absurdity of where we have ended up. The banking system has failed on so many levels. They are unproductive and parasitical and have ended up worthless as a result. Banks should be an enabler; instead they are competing against the productive elements of the economy. If we were to start again, would we really allow such an unproductive, unsustainable industry to flourish? Pensions should be flat rate and paid by the state; quite easy in a sustainable economy. If people want to save more then, as I said earlier, they have the freedom to put away up to £25k per year in their own accounts for a more comfortable retirement. It's not hard to acheive, but it requires the dismantling of the financial markets. The only obstacle is those who have a vested interest, thats the very people and organisations who have bled us to the bone for the last 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studentbob Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Living standards won't increase with population expansion which results in unemployment and smaller and more expensive dwellings, but it will increase if we cut unemployment, immigration and the size of the population. So yes I think we should strive for a better standard of living. I can see your point; the constant chasing of economic growth will always paralyse an economy. The goal we must strive for is sustainability. However, So ordinary people don't have pension funds, insurance funds, mutual investment, if not you are correct if they do then I am correct. Ordinary people benefit when a company makes a profit, these large companies also pay most of the tax which funds the services we receive. you can't defend the institutions that milk our resources and inevitably lead to more debt, more inequality and endless, pointless war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I can see your point; the constant chasing of economic growth will always paralyse an economy. The goal we must strive for is sustainability. However, you can't defend the institutions that milk our resources and inevitably lead to more debt, more inequality and endless, pointless war. I don’t, I just don’t blame the banks and companies for our debts, inequality and endless, pointless wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don’t, I just don’t blame the banks and companies for our debts, inequality and endless, pointless wars. Banks not responsible for our debts? Companies don't profit from wars? Extreme levels of corporate pay don't contribute to wage inequality? You've outdone yourself this time. Wake up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Banks not responsible for our debts? Companies don't profit from wars? Extreme levels of corporate pay don't contribute to wage inequality? You've outdone yourself this time. Wake up! Is a man not responsible for his own debts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.