[Lopez]

Originally Posted by Sunset of Age

A rather large part of the 'common folks' who are now in trouble with their sky rocketing-high mortagages and other loans are to blame themselves as well.

This is very true... I mean even if you got great loan terms why would you want to own several houses? Especially if your job isn't making that much money. I read a great book about the crisis called "The Big Short" and there it was mentioned for example that two sisters who were foreign born nannies (or maids) together owned like five apartments in New York .

If it's too good to be true, it probably is. It's not like these loans didn't have the terms in the contracts. Read the effing paper before you sign it! How the f*ck would you be able to afford five houses when in reality, you can barely own one?

Sadly, I think that personal money and savings management is very poorly taught at the high school and vocational school level, in some cases even at the university level.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Sri

Sarkozy was a joke, but isn't the British economy doing well under Cameron?

Obviously people don't matter and policies do, haven't you had enough during the decade of Labour? What's their solution to the economy? More spending?

No, sensible spending. Unlike the ConDems who threw money at bailing out Greece.

Unemployment right now is higher than at any point during the 13 years under Labour, which were far from perfect, but are better than what we have now.

[fast_clay]

Originally Posted by Lopez

If it's too good to be true, it probably is. It's not like these loans didn't have the terms in the contracts. Read the effing paper before you sign it! How the f*ck would you be able to afford five houses when in reality, you can barely own one?

so far as I know mate, banks provide a service to the people... and it is actually the banks responsibility to ensure that a loan can be guaranteed... ... that is actually their core role in society, to determine what is good business... in it's very essence, that is their job...

it is wrong to blame the people for the systematic increase of debt... very wrong...

[Lopez]

Originally Posted by fast_clay

so far as I know mate, banks provide a service to the people... and it is actually the banks responsibility to ensure that a loan can be guaranteed... ... that is actually their core role in society, to determine what is good business... in it's very essence, that is their job...

it is wrong to blame the people for the systematic increase of debt... very wrong...

Banks are businesses and they do indeed provide a service, i.e. they provide money immediately in exchange for money in the future. Of course those guys are idiots who are offering loans to people who can never afford them but I'd say it's stupid to take a loan that you can't afford as well.

[Chris 84]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

You are totally wrong. Why will you never admit to it?

What are you 8 years old? You seriously think you're making a convincing rational argument here?

no, i was drawing a line under it. i think one thing, you think another. i made my argument. you will never agree with me, that's all.

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Stop embarrassing yourself. If you don't know what liberalism is then stop pretending to know what you're talking about.

i do know what liberalism is. categorising an economic system as "liberal" makes no sense. it could mean practically anything. if anything it has laissez-faire connotations.

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Referendums, local elections, bi-elections, debates, conferences - any of these ring a bell? Again, you should educate yourself on democracy/politics before pretending to know what you're saying.

bi-elections? and you want me to educate myself? what are bi-elections? both heterosexual and homosexual? it is by-election or bye-election. i guess you learn something new every day

my honours degree in law and politics suggests that i know a fair amount about the subject.

here's the thing. debates, conferences and local elections have no direct effect on government policy. referenda are called when parliament calls for them. by-elections are called only when an MP resigns/dies, etc. where the public has a grievance, none of these features of a democracy can have a direct effect on government policy, with the exception of referenda, which in most countries are only called if government decides to call for them. if you are saying that democracy is not purely voting once every 4-5 years, then sure....but in terms of holding government to account and influencing policy, none of the features you mention are very relevant.

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Doesn't matter how long ago it was, people protesting in various nations because they do not have democratic means to resolve their issue. Blacks, women, homosexuals not receiving equal rights in society is obviously non democratic. If you don't trust the electoral process in UK, America or any other western country, you should move to a country you do trust. Unless you think every country is unfair in which case you don't trust anyone and you're probably a hopeless case of obsessive paranoia.

the economic system ensures that not everyone has equal rights. from birth some people are hugely advantaged and some hugely disadvantaged. to me, economic rights are more important than liberal rights.
the argument "if you don't like it, then leave" is the very attitude perpetuated by the ruling classes in order to isolate and ridicule those who want change. people who want change and believe in change should fight for it.

Originally Posted by Jimnik

You're obviously very sensitive on this protesting issue. Have you been involved in demonstrations yourself? You seem to be trying to convince yourself it was the right thing to do.

it doesn't enter into my head that demonstrating could ever be wrong. as long as people operate within the law, then i don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. i'm not sensitive about it, particularly, i just regard it as being as important a democratic right as the right to vote.

Originally Posted by Jimnik

This.

Won't happen though. Polls show just as many Lib Dems defecting to Labour as Tories defecting to UKIP.

Ed "The Shred" Miliband will be the next PM.

supporting ukip says a lot about you. a xenophobic, homophobic, nationalistic, and a home for failed tories and failed chat show hosts is thankfully all that it will ever be.

[Dougie]

Originally Posted by Lopez

This is very true... I mean even if you got great loan terms why would you want to own several houses? Especially if your job isn't making that much money. I read a great book about the crisis called "The Big Short" and there it was mentioned for example that two sisters who were foreign born nannies (or maids) together owned like five apartments in New York .

If it's too good to be true, it probably is. It's not like these loans didn't have the terms in the contracts. Read the effing paper before you sign it! How the f*ck would you be able to afford five houses when in reality, you can barely own one?

Sadly, I think that personal money and savings management is very poorly taught at the high school and vocational school level, in some cases even at the university level.

I read the Big Short as well, pretty shocking stuff. The american consumers can certainly look at the mirror, but theyre not the only ones. The whole scam ( I´d say thats the right word) was based on the assumption that house prices would keep rising forever. If they did, banks would have had nothing to worry about even if they´re customers would default. As we all know, it didn´t quite work that way. In retrospect, who the hell would think house prices would keep rising forever??? Well, pretty many financial institutions, it turns out.

Yes, the consumers didnt have a clue, but they were also purposely misled. The banks did they´re best to convince them it was the smart thing to do, and offered them cheap interest rates for one year ( for example), after which the rates went up, and the customers were screwed.

[Gagsquet]

In the neoclassical view, people are supposedly aware of what they are signing and all the consequences. disconnected of the reality these clowns. and that's precisely theories of these bunch of clowns which rule our world.

[fast_clay]

Originally Posted by Gagsquet

In the neoclassical view, people are supposedly aware of what they are signing and all the consequences. disconnected of the reality these clowns. and that's precisely theories of these bunch of clowns which rule our world.

The neoclassical models the west has run upon for decades take neither the role of credit, debt nor banks into account shocking logic when you consider 97% of money creation is by banks, through bad loans, cheap money... pretty much forcing debt upon society.

No one is really educated about it. Why? Well, when banks hires, fires and controls the issues in the mainstream media, well, it is not in their best interest to run stories against the status quo. Everyone is in debt, and it binds everyone to the same master.

Most university education in the field of economics is pretty much totally useless if enough time hasn't been spent studying non-orthodox economic models, which will be where the new global powers will turn to for future models - that attitude is reflected in the harvard economic students walking out of class a few weeks ago in protest at the narrow, ageing introductory course that doesn't preach anything but the neoclassical view.

Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes her laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild ~ 1744 - 1812

[Gagsquet]

Pure neoclassical vision is anyway in a pretty bad state at the moment. I am really interested in New Keynesian economics which make a coherent synthesis of neoclassical contribution but rejecting absurdities of this school of thought like the perfect rationality of agent, the efficiency of the market and the rejection of the State intervention. Economists like Krugman,Stiglitz or Akerlof should be reforming our stupid current financial system rather than being stick to write editorials in the NYT.

[Sunset of Age]

Originally Posted by Dougie

I read the Big Short as well, pretty shocking stuff. The american consumers can certainly look at the mirror, but theyre not the only ones. The whole scam ( I´d say thats the right word) was based on the assumption that house prices would keep rising forever. If they did, banks would have had nothing to worry about even if they´re customers would default. As we all know, it didn´t quite work that way. In retrospect, who the hell would think house prices would keep rising forever??? Well, pretty many financial institutions, it turns out.

Pretty much like what is happening in my country right now.
For about 15 years the hype has been that house prices would only keep on rising - yeah, like 'forever' Again, nothing being learnt from history. Another complicating factor in this matter is that we have a rather ridiculous regulation over here that allows you to distract your debts from your income tax - so what happened? Many folks tried to get themselves a mortage as high as possible for this very reason...
Looks like that legislation is about to change now, but I think it should have happened some 10 years ago already, when economy was still booming.

Yes, the consumers didnt have a clue, but they were also purposely misled. The banks did they´re best to convince them it was the smart thing to do, and offered them cheap interest rates for one year ( for example), after which the rates went up, and the customers were screwed.

Exactly the same over here. People were encouraged by the banks to get high mortages on houses which they couldn't really afford at all. Of course, many fell for it, as consumentism and 'keeping up with the Jones's' apparently gets more and more 'important' in our current money-and-status driven society.
Well I know who eventually got the last laugh, but it's a bit to now be the person who's helping out those who laughed at me for such a very long time...

[fast_clay]

Originally Posted by Gagsquet

Pure neoclassical vision is anyway in a pretty bad state at the moment. I am really interested in New Keynesian economics which make a coherent synthesis of neoclassical contribution but rejecting absurdities of this school of thought like the perfect rationality of agent, the efficiency of the market and the rejection of the State intervention. Economists like Krugman,Stiglitz or Akerlof should be reforming our stupid current financial system rather than being stick to write editorials in the NYT.

Keynes' own great body of work was hijacked from it's natural path, is good to see it getting a rework. I'd be wary of Krugman though, doesn't think private debt in a fiat system plays a significant role in the economy and has copped a bollocking recently - but, really, what is required now is open, honest dialogue from all different ideologies... and the longer the very broken neoclassical models continue the more they will be ignored in the future.

[Jimnik]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

No, sensible spending. Unlike the ConDems who threw money at bailing out Greece.

Like they were doing under Brown?

Labour would have thrown money at Greece too, probably even more money.

[Sri]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

No, sensible spending. Unlike the ConDems who threw money at bailing out Greece.

Unemployment right now is higher than at any point during the 13 years under Labour, which were far from perfect, but are better than what we have now.

I think austerity and 'sensible spending' are the same thing.

There are some places where spending will boost growth, for example Germany and Singapore have excellent funding options for technology startups that are based there and hire locals. That comes at an expense to the tax payer but creates more jobs, employment and revenue.

[orangehat]

Originally Posted by Sri

I think austerity and 'sensible spending' are the same thing.

There are some places where spending will boost growth, for example Germany and Singapore have excellent funding options for technology startups that are based there and hire locals. That comes at an expense to the tax payer but creates more jobs, employment and revenue.

Start-up and Singapore should never be in the same sentence.
The education system does not encourage start-ups (try as they might) due to long-ingrained social views + the rigid bankruptcy laws also make start-ups very risky. One failed venture = (virtually) doomed for life.

Singapore has also been having tremendous problems with immigrants lately, lots of locals complaining they can't find a job due to so much foreigners taking up the jobs.

Not to mention that the Singapore government is quite a heavy spender.
They don't tax you much in terms of income tax, but look at their taxation on other things, like cars. You currently have to pay at least $64,000 (about $50,000 USD) to buy a piece of paper (Certificate of Entitlement) before you can buy a car. (i.e. the cheapest car will cost you about $100,000 at least).

The economic system has been favouring the rich in Singapore very much over the last few years, about to get even worse in the short run, with public transportation and other social spending hitting plateaus while other prices keep spiralling.

Lastly, if you want to talk about spending-induced growth, Singapore is definitely not the place to start. Low propensity to consume = poor multiplier effect.

[Sri]

Originally Posted by orangehat

Start-up and Singapore should never be in the same sentence.
The education system does not encourage start-ups (try as they might) due to long-ingrained social views + the rigid bankruptcy laws also make start-ups very risky. One failed venture = (virtually) doomed for life.

Singapore has also been having tremendous problems with immigrants lately, lots of locals complaining they can't find a job due to so much foreigners taking up the jobs.

Not to mention that the Singapore government is quite a heavy spender.
They don't tax you much in terms of income tax, but look at their taxation on other things, like cars. You currently have to pay at least $64,000 (about $50,000 USD) to buy a piece of paper (Certificate of Entitlement) before you can buy a car. (i.e. the cheapest car will cost you about $100,000 at least).

The economic system has been favouring the rich in Singapore very much over the last few years, about to get even worse in the short run, with public transportation and other social spending hitting plateaus while other prices keep spiralling.

I'm advising a Singapore based startup as we speak. Here's what I understand happens:

If a technology startup raises more than $100K by any accredited PE firm, the Govt. will provide relief up to $1 million as long as the startup promises to hire locals and maintain a bulk of their operations in Singapore.

Of course can they do better, sure. But compare that to India where the Govt. is finding new ways to tax startups, that's just stupid.