mfs1959 Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 I know you are in part agreeing but even here I'm going to be a pain :-) The next generation could have been 100% sensible and not fallen for it. We will never know because stuffing debt down the generations has changed their lives forever. And for what? Not fighting fascism. Nothing but a few wide screen TVs. For shame. I agree - people have fallen for a consumerist boom in a search for some elusive happiness. Tthey were suckers and we're now paying the price. Just after Iceland collapsed 'The Sunday Times' visited there. The journos talked to people on the island who reflected on the austere life they had lived. No fruit grows there except rhubarb, and that's the only jam they make and eat. One Icelander said, "We thought we could have jam everyday." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmf Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I agree - people have fallen for a consumerist boom in a search for some elusive happiness. Tthey were suckers and we're now paying the price. Just after Iceland collapsed 'The Sunday Times' visited there. The journos talked to people on the island who reflected on the austere life they had lived. No fruit grows there except rhubarb, and that's the only jam they make and eat. One Icelander said, "We thought we could have jam everyday." The thing that gets me is there is absolutely no shame. No talk of the end of winter fuel allowance, free travel or pension cuts as they close final salary schemes to new entrants. They just all keep on claiming whilst the kids take the hit. Not a murmur, just like when house prices were rising. No collective identity at all, the kids might as well be in another country, foreigners in their own land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) As the saying goes, "I'm still a virgin, it only went in a little bit." There seems no similarity at all. It's on a par with "we all ate together". Like "we all ate together" it doesn't get to grips with the financial comparisons, the debt, the thieving of money etc by the people who ate the best parts and dished out the scraps - or who was in overall control and who made the macro decisions for running the economy. Edited April 30, 2012 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 There seems no similarity at all. It's on a par with "we all ate together". Like "we all ate together" it doesn't get to grips with the financial comparisons, the debt, the thieving of money etc by the people who ate the best parts and dished out the scraps - or who was in overall control and who made the macro decisions for running the economy. I'm taking this reply as an exemplar simply because it's the latest posted, but I could take several of the others as a base from which to start. When taking the quotation I never said that we all ate equally. Of course there are different levels of culpability, and of gain. I am sure that even all of the bankers who gained most from the extra profits driven by the flood of money available to lend and the accompanying low interest rates are not equally to blame. Many will have just surfed the wave and got rich by following instructions from on high. In a lot of cxases they will have been too young to have seen a market take a serious downturn. They bought the 'new paradigm'. Just because, through luck or judgement, some did better than others does not mean that we did not all enjoy some benefits directly or indirectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I can accept that a 16 year-old did not eat with the rest of us. That apart, we have all enjoyed some benefits from the unsustainable credit and spending boom. If you have been treated in a PFI hospital, or on equipment financed by government borrowing, accepted child benfit or tax credits, put children through school and/or university you have partaken of the boom. Even the line, "I never voted for them" does not exonerate you if you took the Brown shilling. It's massively unfair to declare that, through lack of choice, a person was implicit and "ate together" if the only other choice is no choice at all. If you live in the UKI, the only option you have is to be forced to use the "services" of the government, local councils, NHS, police, courts, etc. If you don't, you're thrown in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It's massively unfair to declare that, through lack of choice, a person was implicit and "ate together" if the only other choice is no choice at all. If you live in the UKI, the only option you have is to be forced to use the "services" of the government, local councils, NHS, police, courts, etc. If you don't, you're thrown in jail. Just like predatory debt commission and fee hunting - try and escape that in the "market", you will buy or you will pay rent. Pull up on some land (even your own) and start building your own whelter or overstay your welcome in a caravan and you'll soon see the state turn up to turf you out or send you to the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) I'm taking this reply as an exemplar simply because it's the latest posted, but I could take several of the others as a base from which to start. When taking the quotation I never said that we all ate equally. Of course there are different levels of culpability, and of gain. I am sure that even all of the bankers who gained most from the extra profits driven by the flood of money available to lend and the accompanying low interest rates are not equally to blame. Many will have just surfed the wave and got rich by following instructions from on high. In a lot of cxases they will have been too young to have seen a market take a serious downturn. They bought the 'new paradigm'. Just because, through luck or judgement, some did better than others does not mean that we did not all enjoy some benefits directly or indirectly. I think it's fair then to take this reply as a good example as well - for similar reasons. Yes it's fair to agree with there are degrees of culpability etc and I dare say that nobody is perfect but there's a huge difference to enjoying the dubious benefits of huge amounts of debt, loading with even more debt, risky pensions then used as cash cows, insecure employment and policy reversals ("what's happening?" used to be one of the most often used part joking expressions and I dare say that for sure it still applies these days for most people) and just trying to get by on the relative scraps (that is for most people) presented from time to time compared to those who are in the position to benefit from the years of loan interest and years of fees from those "products" along with large dollops of insider knowledge including having a good idea about "what's happening", beyond bail-outs for their mistakes and also along with those who direct and agree policy and seemingly with little concern for the short and long term consequences. Edited May 1, 2012 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Like it's not bl00dy written all over the contract you are supposed to read and then sign. Oh that's right, people don't read them so it's still the fault of the lender. Too fecking lazy to read it more like.All the regs require disclosure to the umpteenth degree, like "Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments." Heard of that one? It's always everyone else's fault. Like Lemmings over a cliff. If an expert in risk assessment in full possession of the facts of your situation is so confident in your ability to repay that he is willing to offer you hundreds of thousands of pounds - why would you not believe him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 If an expert in risk assessment in full possession of the facts of your situation is so confident in your ability to repay that he is willing to offer you hundreds of thousands of pounds - why would you not believe him? I think you'll find that their risk assessor was assessing the banks risks, not yours. Or do you mean the relationship between the banks and the market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 A slave owner could tell his slaves the same thing: "we all ate together". But the slaves got only food and shelter, and the owners got everything else. They are not in the same moral position. It's just gold gen propaganda. You could say: " we all ate together. But you also got, besides food, fancy cars, subsidised mortgages, fat pensions, all the savings in the country, and retirement at 55". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 A slave owner could tell his slaves the same thing: "we all ate together". But the slaves got only food and shelter, and the owners got everything else. They are not in the same moral position. It's just gold gen propaganda. You could say: " we all ate together. But you also got, besides food, fancy cars, subsidised mortgages, fat pensions, all the savings in the country, and retirement at 55". Sorry to point this out; we're not slaves; we had some measure of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Sorry to point this out; we're not slaves; we had some measure of choice. I feel sorry for you if you are not able to open your eyes and see that, actually, there is no escape and that your choices are limited by what your slave owners would let you do. A slave that has a choice of what food he eats is still a slave. Actually, I feel sorry for me to have swallowed the red pill - there is no turning back. Oh to be content with the state of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 I feel sorry for you if you are not able to open your eyes and see that, actually, there is no escape and that your choices are limited by what your slave owners would let you do. A slave that has a choice of what food he eats is still a slave. Actually, I feel sorry for me to have swallowed the red pill - there is no turning back. Oh to be content with the state of the world. If you wish to feel that you are a slave, fine by me. I prefer Oscar's tag, "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 If you wish to feel that you are a slave, fine by me. I prefer Oscar's tag, "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." I don't wish to feel like that - it's how it is. Here's a little experiment for you - go buy a little plot of arable land somewhere, and try building your own house on it. without the necessary permissions from the state ( and therefore having to "eat from the same plate") you'll find that you get your very own little room to live in, just with bars on the windows. Oscars quote might have been a little more appropriate if he was truly poor, not the gentry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Sorry to point this out; we're not slaves; we had some measure of choice. Not our situation is slavery, but rather slavery illustrates... (what the excuse is hiding). If you live in a society, you don't really have any choice about how the system affects you, unless you're rich. How in the UK could we have escaped the bubble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 Not our situation is slavery, but rather slavery illustrates... (what the excuse is hiding). If you live in a society, you don't really have any choice about how the system affects you, unless you're rich. How in the UK could we have escaped the bubble? The quotation in question did not say that we all helped plan the banquet, but that we all took our serving, however small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) The quotation in question did not say that we all helped plan the banquet, but that we all took our serving, however small. And I'm (we're) saying that the choice we had was to eat or starve. i.e. no choice at all. edited to add: I notice that you're not actually addressing our point - are you deliberately just trying to troll? Edited May 2, 2012 by Lepista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 The quotation in question did not say that we all helped plan the banquet, but that we all took our serving, however small. That's nonsense. People whose wages were stagnating, while prices rose 10% per year, were being shafted. The truth is more like: "only some got to benefit, mostly bankers and people exporting from China. Everyone else is going to suffer". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 And I'm (we're) saying that the choice we had was to eat or starve. i.e. no choice at all. edited to add: I notice that you're not actually addressing our point - are you deliberately just trying to troll? I would actually point out that there has been little attempt to address the point I originally made. No one was forced to spend money on credit cards, to borrow money to buy the latest car, to live beyond the level supported by their salary without making reasonable allowances for disruption in earnings. OK, 'We all' may be a little generalist, but then so have many of the responses relied on the generic rather than the specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I would actually point out that there has been little attempt to address the point I originally made. No one was forced to spend money on credit cards, to borrow money to buy the latest car, to live beyond the level supported by their salary without making reasonable allowances for disruption in earnings. OK, 'We all' may be a little generalist, but then so have many of the responses relied on the generic rather than the specific. I think that point has been addressed. If someone lived beyond their means, and overextended themself with credit, then yes, I think it's fine that they should suffer the consequences. Many, many people, however, did not extend themselves, and did not gorge themselves on debt. However, those that chose to live frugally, within their means, for years were looked down on, laughed at whilst those who saw paper fortunes being made MEW'ed themselves the latest car, 3/4 holidays a year, lived the high life. Well, guess what - it's nearly time to pay the piper. Why should those people who didn't contribute to the mess be forced to pay as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfs1959 Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 I think that point has been addressed. If someone lived beyond their means, and overextended themself with credit, then yes, I think it's fine that they should suffer the consequences. Many, many people, however, did not extend themselves, and did not gorge themselves on debt. However, those that chose to live frugally, within their means, for years were looked down on, laughed at whilst those who saw paper fortunes being made MEW'ed themselves the latest car, 3/4 holidays a year, lived the high life. Well, guess what - it's nearly time to pay the piper. Why should those people who didn't contribute to the mess be forced to pay as well? Believe it or not, I accept the point. To be quite honest, I am pretty close to the description you give, except I took advantage of 0% interest deals to replace my car. As a rhetorical device, however, "we nearly all ate together" doesn't quite work. Furthermore most of the posts against the contention have been along the lines of, "The bankers got more than the rest of us." This sort of statement doesn't address the point in the way that your comment does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Believe it or not, I accept the point. To be quite honest, I am pretty close to the description you give, except I took advantage of 0% interest deals to replace my car. As a rhetorical device, however, "we nearly all ate together" doesn't quite work. Furthermore most of the posts against the contention have been along the lines of, "The bankers got more than the rest of us." This sort of statement doesn't address the point in the way that your comment does. Thankyou. Your earlier posts seemed to be along the lines of "everybody in the UK benefitted, and ate at the table, because the UK debt was growing, therefore it is everybodies responsibility to repay.", hence the style and content of my replies. The internet is very good at being able to misrepresent your true meanings. Maybe the greek minister was talking about the countries eating together, in which case I would agree. Individually, it is unfair to suggest that everybody in that nation is culpable, as they had no choice. I feel sorry for a lot of the individuals in greece who are in a similar position. I fear that, no matter what happens, us UK minions will suffer for the excesses of the last ten years or so of other peoples partying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I think you'll find that their risk assessor was assessing the banks risks, not yours. Or do you mean the relationship between the banks and the market? My point is that there is no such thing as irresponsible borrowing in a situation where access to the funds is controlled by highly paid experts in risk assessment- if you qualify for a loan according to the strict criteria these experts apply then by definition your borrowing cannot be irresponsible. So the banker narrative that the public is to blame for the crisis does not make sense, since the only way that bad lending could have taken place would be if the bankers themselves for some reason chose to advance funds to high risk borrowers- in which case it would be the bankers themselves to blame for the crisis. Even if the public were composed entirely of people willing to take on unrealistic levels of debt this would not be a problem unless those advancing the funds were incentivised to make bad lending decisions- which of course they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 My point is that there is no such thing as irresponsible borrowing in a situation where access to the funds is controlled by highly paid experts in risk assessment- if you qualify for a loan according to the strict criteria these experts apply then by definition your borrowing cannot be irresponsible. So the banker narrative that the public is to blame for the crisis does not make sense, since the only way that bad lending could have taken place would be if the bankers themselves for some reason chose to advance funds to high risk borrowers- in which case it would be the bankers themselves to blame for the crisis. Even if the public were composed entirely of people willing to take on unrealistic levels of debt this would not be a problem unless those advancing the funds were incentivised to make bad lending decisions- which of course they were. To be fair, I don't really care if lending is responsible or not, nor do I care if it is irresponsible on the side of the mortgagor or mortgagee. Just don't force me to pay for the consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulfar Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I would also argue that those who have borrowed heavily haven't benefited at all. They will have to pay it back, unlike the bankers they aren't going to receive free money. Aside from this there is no true opt-out choice available. Anyone who tries to live independently of the state isn't allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.