Sunday, May 27, 2007
Reposted in its own thread
The Times: Because we're worth it
The boomers have poisoned the wells and ploughed salt into the fields. Their post-war idyll is over; the world is returning to its default mode of confrontation and violence, now made more ominous by looming catastrophes like global warming. In the midst of their success and greed, the boomers forgot Edmund Burke’s most imperishable insight – that society is a contract with three interested parties: the dead, the living and the unborn. Their children are paying the price of their amnesia. For the moment, they seem resigned, but, soon enough, they’ll want their world back.
Posted by sold 2 rent 1 @ 02:31 PM (448 views) Add Comment
22 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. sold 2 rent 1 said...
Fantastic article.
The only thing missing is the wait for generational rebalancing is closer than we think - starting with a stocks crash this autumn.
I am not sure if the author, Bryan Appleyard, has heard of kondratieff, but many ideas in this article reflect k-theory.
It's all about sustainable existence.
'the Iroquois, an American-Indian tribe, have, as a part of their “great law”, the idea of seven-generation sustainability. Every decision has to be taken in the light of its effects on the next seven generations.'
2. paul said...
Well said S2R1. Great article.
3. Sitting Tight said...
Not related, but check out this site: http://www.propertysnake.co.uk
-
-site lists reduced house prices. Will be a good one to watch!!
4. Aminorchacha said...
More generational gibberish. Britain's birth rate did not rise from the 1940's to the 1960s as the article states, that was a US phenomenon.
Apart from a short intense spike in the number of babies in 1947, immediately after the end of World War 2, the birth rate was nothing special for much of the the following decade. It only really took off in the late 1950s and early 1960s. As a consequence most of Britain's Baby Boom generation are in their early to mid 40s not their 50s or 60s. Anyone who doubts these facts need only check the population pyramid graph at the Office of Statistics Web Site to see the reality.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/svg_pyramid/uk/index.html
Sadly, this is just another example of lazy journalists picking up on a US story and then applying it lock, stock and barrel to the UK without seeing whether the facts fit. Any way Boomers wherever they live are no more responsible for the worlds woes than Blacks, Fremasons, Seventh Day adventists, Morris Dancers or whatever other group has been chosen as scapegoats. In fact if you want to know the real villains on the planet look no further than the sort of person who owns the Sunday Times and publishes this sort of mendacious and divisive rubbish.
5. iguana said...
"every generation blames the one before"
A rather trite truism perhaps but relevant, the circumstances enjoyed (or otherwise) by the 'boomers' were not of their own making, they were busily seeking to revolt against the generation that had made the '60s possible. Similarly, the current spectacular disaster underway cannot be blamed upon a generation but upon a small number of singularly stupid and shortsighted 'managers' of the western economies.
Yes there is a dire time upon the horizon but to seek to lay the blame in the way that this article does is as singularly stupid and shortsighted.............. you get the idea.
6. Pr said...
Its the free market neo-liberal principles that ignore how interconnected the world is. Those who don't realise that the role of government is to intervene to avoid the excesses of capitalism that occur when social and environmental needs are ignored by the market (this happens in every market at every level). Often governments align with the very forces that harm the majority and the environment. These excesses result in bubbles, but the real fear is about how those bubbles can cause fascism, which is spreading alarmingly throughout the 3rd world and emerging nations who realise now how they are screwed by us into a meagre existence. Excess liquidity has to go somewhere, and the big fear is that it goes into imperialism and war. We are seeing this with America, Russia, UK, Iran, etc. A post a while back showed how the last great depression resulted in a net fall in borrowing, that preceeded two world wars. With borrowing above the 1930's peak now for the first time, that is my biggest fear. If we were sensible, we would plough that excess liquidity into saving the planet and investing in sustainability, balancing the world economy in the interest of social equality and putting some real money into family planning to stop the population bubble before we become like a suicide population of yeast. But everything is slanted to to the right wing of politics, wherever it really matters.
I'm not calling for communism or anything like that, I'm talking about true democracy where the government recognises the limits of free markets, but lets them operate unregulated when and where they are positive, where democracy means giving a theoretical vote to the planet earth and voiceless ecosystems as stakeholders by listening to scientists, where breadline African's are given the same protection as our own, where those unborn are valued as much as those unborn. But instead, we plough money into oil, nuclear and property and create self-reinforcing imbalances, because corporations hold the purse strings. Most of these problems require international co-operation, so growth of the EU could become positive in this respect, but many global forces are regressive with no obvious signs of enlightenment.
7. sirgoogle said...
I do not agree with the theory of generational conflict at all, and do not agree that the Boomer generation is particularly profligate.
Back in the mid to late 90s the "Boomers" lost confidence in their main means of saving for a pension - Pension funds and endowments - both of which rely on Bonds, Stocks etc. This was due to people like Maxwell and Gordon Brown leading the way in robbing the pension funds either directly or indirectly, the IT led Stock Market Crash and exposure of the poor accounting practices in what were flagship conpanies.
To the Boomers, the property boom is the last "safe" haven for their pension. Coupled with 10 years of low Interest rates and lax lending criteria, Boomers have moved their savings enmasse into property. The fact that the young have been left out in the cold is sad - but while the Western world operates a free market this is what will happen.
When the HPC comes (and all the signs are there that the USA and IRE are already undergoing the change) the roles will be switched and we will see stories of the Young cashing in on those Old who have heavily MEWed on their property - to pay for their pension and perhaps a few perks or FTB deposits for their kids. We will also read about Boomers who are having to rely completely on the State Pension because they lost everything in the Stockmarket crash, collapsed pension funds and property crash.
I would hope to see more measured articles than this in future - knowning how parents think (I am one) - these Boomers will be worried enough already.
And no I am not a Boomer.
8. paul said...
Ah, no iguana. That truism is not. Our grandparents paid for the excesses of our parents - ask them. They paid massive taxes in the post-war years to bring up our parents.
Our parents then lived off the fat of the land. Remember they had all sorts of benefits at every stage in life. The government even paid them to get University educations, and own their own houses.
To say that every generation blames the rest is to undermine what has really taken place which is a huge and unprecedented transferral of wealth and security from a younger generation to an older generation.
The reason they have it so good is because we have it so bad, and because their parents had it so bad - make no mistake.
9. Mr Ben said...
It's lose lose if you ask me. What ever happens I dont think there is enough to go around. If houses crash the boomers lose their pensions and face an old age of poverty. Their children get to watch their parents suffer and will be burdened with paying towards their living cost. Should house prices stay at the current levels (not that i think they will), the boomers get to retire watching their children struggle, uncertain about their future. The damage has been done. Crash = poverty, 'soft landing' = poverty. Poverty = crime, death, suffering etc (sorry to be all gloomy). We're all being screwed by the people (managers) in charge of all this. I think they understand how the world works better than we give them credit. Blaming each other is not the answer.
10. tyrellcorporation said...
Spot on Paul...
11. tyrellcorporation said...
Gordon Brown has also loaded unprecidented future debt in the form of PFI contracts. New Labour get the glow of public support as new schools and hospitals spring up like a rash across the land but we'll pay for this largesse in the future 100 times over. Disgraceful but no one seems to give a t*ss!
12. enuii said...
It's not the Baby Boomers per say it's more to do with the politicians of their era wanting to keep their voters sweet in order to look after their own interests. Blair, Brown and their international peers are the ones particularly responsible, the problems of demographics, pensions, housing etc have been known about for at least 10 years but no politician has the gumption to bear the responsibilty of bad news and it has been all to easy in conjunction with a blase media to sweep the whole lot under the carpet.
Unfortunately a hell of a lot of Turkeys are coming home to roost all at once.
13. Markybeats said...
Couple of points on the article
Britain's main post war baby boom happened later than in the US and peaked in the 1960's. Most British boomers are still in their early-mid 40s not over 50 as the author suggests. The details are all there on the Office of Government Statistics site if anyone can be bothered to look.
Unlike today hardly anyone from the Baby Boom generation went to University. Most left school at sixteen and did not receive state funded higher education.
Many of the boomers who joined the housing market in the 1980's had exactly the same problems as younger people today in finding affordable property. This problem was compounded by high unemployment throughout most of the first half of that decade. Many did not purchase their first property until the Housing Crash of the early 1990s
Why is Rupert Murdoch's Sunday times so keen to print articles designed to encourage generational conflict. Surely, they can not be trying to divert peoples attention away from the section of society who are really responsible for the state of the world today. Try reading the article replacing the word boomer with Jew or black and see how the scapegoating works.
14. Pr said...
Maybe the baby boomers have taken money from first time buyers, but they have also fooled themselves into spending 20-40% of their income on houses, which could deflate swiftly, taking all of their hard earned investment with it. Putting them in exactly the same place as renters who have thrown money away to faceless landlords. We all loose. Politicians need to realise that unsustainable house price inflation, like goods and services inflation, is a bad thing, even to those who experience higher house price values. As I mentioned a while back, the boom and crash is bad for people like me, because, had house prices been sustainable the past 5yrs or so, I'd have brought somewhere and not now be throwing money away on rent, I'd be 5yrs into eating away at a 25yr mortgage. ) ;
15. nearly30 said...
What's it going to be like 10 years - will we see endless reports of pensioners who lost everything in the 'Great Crash of 2008'?
Or, one big societal rift between Boomers and everyone else!
BTW forget the Millenial Kids - they are going to be less than useless having been taught by NueLabs dictats - and will prob form one of the largest groups of ASBO agry-yoof brigade this country has ever seen. Seriously - move out of a town whilst you have the chance. The NEETS are going to inherit your stuff.
Ah...Britain, Britain, Britain..I'm moving to some remote spot to live out my next 50 years - honestly - as soon as i've got the cash - S2R1 - I'm with you on the feeling it's a bit like 1929..and running all the way up to 1939/40.
16. Observer said...
The problem is that the west lives longer.The average person in the uk is made to live longer( anti-hypertensives etc, and Forced to live longer( anti-smoking and anti eating bacon and eggs)What can you expect if you then get an aged population?I do not wish to write much more, but suffice to say that the first world will eventually regress into a third world status because of its need to look after its elderly......a noble thing for an individual and a family to do, but an impossible burden for the state and therefore the young working and tax paying population.....
17. Observer said...
ps, and anti-smoking........
18. sold 2 rent 1 said...
"I'm moving to some remote spot to live "
Question: which country is best in a k-winter?
- Must be high on natural resources. Water, food and energy.
- low on debt.
- climate change proof
- Low density, self sustaining population
- far from terrorist tagets in western world.
Maybe northern Canada. Any other ideas?
19. Harold said...
S2R1
NZ.
20. harold said...
S2R1
NZ.
21. _woody said...
I accept a crash grows more likely. Alternatively, social inequality will reach unprecented levels coupled with social mobility hitting new lows.
Either way, we will be provided with evidence of the capitalist model at its worst. How did it come to this?
22. _woody said...
I accept a crash grows more likely. The alternative - social inequality will reach unprecedented levels coupled with social mobility hitting new lows.
Either way, we will be provided with evidence of the capitalist model at its worst. How did it come to this?