Apparently we're not in recession some people on here have said

[I1L2T3]

Is a man not responsible for his own debts?

 

Personal debt is part of the problem. But so is corporate debt. And sovereign debt too. Joe public is not totally to blame for this crisis.

[studentbob]

I don’t, I just don’t blame the banks and companies for our debts, inequality and endless, pointless wars.

 

I don't think I can offer a better reply than this:

 

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!

[JFKvsNixon]

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.

 

Historically our living standards have increased with population expansion, the problem is that over the last 15 years instead of rising wages driving our living standards, they've been driven by cheap credit. For capitalism to work, there has to be some feedback of profits down through the workforce along with investment back into the business.

[MrSmith]

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!

 

Banks aren’t to blame for people’s debts, they are there to provide a service and it’s the responsibility of the borrower to pay back any loans.

 

Companies manufacture weapons and sell them for a profit but they aren’t to blame for the wars that people have, people fought wars long before companies made weapons.

 

Corporations offer jobs at differing levels of pay but it’s not their fault that some people aren’t suitable for the higher pay grades whilst other are only suitable for the lower pay grades. That would be the fault of the employee for having a lower standard of education and less experience.

[MrSmith]

Historically our living standards have increased with population expansion,

 

Generally living standards have increased in this country but it wasn't because the population increased, look at other countries that didn't have the same level of technology and their population expansion increased poverty.

[JFKvsNixon]

Generally living standards have increased in this country but it wasn't because the population increased, look at other countries that didn't have the same level of technology and their population expansion increased poverty.

 

I never suggested that the improvement in our living standards was down to population increase, I was merely stating that population increase need not be a bar to improving living standards.

[I1L2T3]

Banks aren’t to blame for people’s debts, they are there to provide a service and it’s the responsibility of the borrower to pay back any loans.

 

Companies manufacture weapons and sell them for a profit but they aren’t to blame for the wars that people have, people fought wars long before companies made weapons.

 

Corporations offer jobs at differing levels of pay but it’s not their fault that some people aren’t suitable for the higher pay grades whilst other are only suitable for the lower pay grades. That would be the fault of the employee for having a lower standard of education and less experience.

 

You can't ignore the ways in which money was made available for loans. Low capital ratios, excessive leverage, CMOs, wholesale market funding etc... On many threads you call for lower house prices and then on others you defend the actions of the banks. You need to think that through and get a consistent message together because it took the banks and the borrowers to create the mess. They couldn't have done it without eachother.

 

As for corporations benefitting from war take a look at the amonts the USA spends on its military. Again it's a two way thing. The corporations need the military. The military needs the corporations.

 

Your last paragraph is absolutely the least convincing defence of excessive corporate pay I've ever seen.

[JFKvsNixon]

Your last paragraph is absolutely the least convincing defence of excessive corporate pay I've ever seen.

 

It is a school playground argument.

[MrSmith]

You can't ignore the ways in which money was made available for loans. Low capital ratios, excessive leverage, CMOs, wholesale market funding etc... On many threads you call for lower house prices and then on others you defend the actions of the banks. You need to think that through and get a consistent message together because it took the banks and the borrowers to create the mess. They couldn't have done it without eachother.

 

As for corporations benefitting from war take a look at the amonts the USA spends on its military. Again it's a two way thing. The corporations need the military. The military needs the corporations.

 

Your last paragraph is absolutely the least convincing defence of excessive corporate pay I've ever seen.

 

Banks made money available for people to buy houses, they didn't increase the population, they didn't prevent enough houses from being built, they didn't set interest rates and they didn't take housing costs out of the inflation figures, banks did play their part in the housing bubble but they didn't cause it so aren’t to blame. The last government can take most of the blame for the housing bubble.

 

Just because corporations make profits out of war doesn't make them responsible for the war, they are just reacting to what people want, if someone demands it then someone else will supply it.

 

Pay is set by supply and demand, if there are several million people capable of cleaning a toilet, toilet cleaners will be paid a low wage, if there are just a few people capable of running a huge company then they will be offered a high wage.

[I1L2T3]

Banks made money available for people to buy houses, they didn't increase the population, they didn't prevent enough houses from being built, they didn't set interest rates and they didn't take housing costs out of the inflation figures, banks did play their part in the housing bubble but they didn't cause it so aren’t to blame. The last government can take most of the blame for the housing bubble.

 

Just because corporations make profits out of war doesn't make them responsible for the war, they are just reacting to what people want, if someone demands it them someone else will supply it.

 

Pay is set by supply and demand, if there are several million people capable of cleaning a toilet, toilet cleaners will be paid a low wage, if there are just a few people capable of running a huge company then they will be offered a high wage.

 

Banks supplied the credit. Banks adopted very lax lending criteria. They are part of the problem. You can't have a credit bubble without suppliers of credit. You need to question how vast amounts of credit were generated. How did they do it?

 

You need to understand more about the relationsips between the military, corporations and politicians. Start with the USA.

 

If that is the sum of your argument you need to explain why, until the last 20-30 years, most successful corporations operated with much smaller pay differentials. We also see the problem in the public sector. You aren't suggesting that high differentials in the public sector are justified too can you? Your demand for talent argument would certainly support that.