Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. Well you didn't read what I said, and I'm certainly no making excuses for the elites (I wish they would just leave everyone alone and stop interfering), I did a quick back of the envelope adjustment for growth, however, I've provided a more detailed calculation here:

    GDP 1910 = £2.14 Billion * 99 (Inflation Multiplier) = £212 Billion (at 2010 prices)

    Growth in prosperity = £1450 / 212 = 6.83

    State spending on basic pensions per year = 500,000 (claimants) *0.25 (pension per week) * 99 (inflation multiplier) * 6.83 (growth multiplier) * 52 (weeks per year) = £4,395,105,000.

    Government Spending on Basic State Pension for 1908 (adjusted for growh and inflation) = £4.4 Billion

    Government Spending on Basic State Pension for 2012 = 11,000,000 (claimants) * £107.45 * 52 (weeks per year) = £61,614,000,000 Say £61.61 Billion

    Burden of basic state pension is 14 times greater than in 1908 (61.61 / 4.4).


    Total Government Spending on Pensions 2012 = £127.2 Billion (Breakdown of UK budget 2012)

    Therefore burden in 2012 is 28 times greater (127.2 Billon / £4.4 Billion)

    What you've also got to understand that birth rates are falling, and the populaton is aging.

    If you do not believe me just look at the World Banks statistics going back to 1967 (Historical Birth Rates UK), the birth rate has fallen from about 18 in every 1,000, to 13 in every 1,000.

    So yes, the pension age population is rising by 5% to 23%, but the working population has to also fall by %5, by the way the pensionable age population in 1967 was only 12%, and working age population appeared to peak in 2007.

    You've also got consider health care too, there are numerous age related illnesses that leave people disabled, unable to work, and requiring considerable care. Back in 1908 because the average life expectancy was only 54 years old for women (as opposed to 79.9 years for women today), most people were expected to be dead before even developing age related illnesses. Worse still medicine currently prolongs people in a sick and miserable state, there are no cures, or regenerative treatments, after things like heart attack, stroke, dementia, parkinsons, etc. begin to cause damage (in other words the progression of such diseases is slowed, and patients become increasingly more disabled and sick for many years until they die).

    * EDIT *

    Here's a history of state health spending:

    1910 = £9.1 million * 99 (inflation multiplier) * 6.83 (adjustment for GDP growth) = £6.15 Billion

    2010 = £118 Billion

    To be honest a fairer comparison, to take account of the advent of the NHS after 1945, and to also look for age related costs, would be health care spending between say, 1980 (boomer's in their prime) and today:

    UK GDP 1980 = 230 Billion * 4.2 (inflation multiplier) = £966 Billon (2012 prices)

    Growth in prosperity since 1980 = £1,450 Billion / £966 Billion = 1.5

    Health Spending in 1980, expressed in 2012 prices, and adjust for growth = £11.8 Billion * 4.2 (inflation multiplier) * 1.5 (growth in GDP) = £75 Billion

    Therefore UK spending on health care, in real terms, has increased by £43 Billion (£118 Billion - £75 Bllion), an increase of 57% in 30 years.

    * END EDIT *

    Just look at some of the numbes projected by the King's Fund:

    My Link

    I have no politicial agenda as such, I can just see the goverment heading for a huge fall, they're putting £1 billion the credit card every 3 days as things stand, I would rather be prepared.

    * EDIT * Like I said before, the government are running a ponzi scheme in terms of the state pension, and for it to work they need more entrants than those exiting, this has fallen in pure population terms, from (in 1908 ) roughly 1 pensioner for every 100, to 1 pensioner for every 6, in 2012.

    In terms of the employed population it is 1 pensioner for every 3 workers. Of the pension bill in 2012 of £127.2 Billion, and 34,000,000 million workers, that's £3,741 per year, each worker has to fund, on top of trying to save for their own pension, and hopefully one day buy a home (as thing stand, my own personal circumstances mean that I either have to choose between owning a very modest home, or saving for a pension, but not both. I feel that I need to provide some sort of pension for myself because the state are probably going to make me work into my 70s, and provide a pension that has been inflated away to nothing when I do receive it).

    The way things are, the government is making life massively difficult for young people, which is having negative feed back into the demographics (just look at the births and demographics from 1967 onward, if you correlate that with the advent of the welfare state, you could well make a link between worsening demographics and government intervention) and making the spending plans increasingly unrealistic.

    What would make things even more interesting, is if net immigration into the UK, turned into net emigration (perhaps if immigrants saw that the UK was turning into an economic basket case, and they felt there were better destinations instead), as this has been putting a prop under the birth rates and has kept a lid on the aging of the population.

    Very impressive

    problem is - most people are in complete and utter denial

    the gravy train MUST go on


  2. What are we going to do, embarrass the EU to death with our superior economic performance?

    Europe is facing years of serious decline

    we can either shackle ourselves to them or trade with the rest of the World where all the growth and prosperity is likely to occur this century.

    If you have never heard of the Continental system then try Googling it.

    Europe has tried to wage economic warfare against the UK many times in the past and has always failed

    no reason why things should be any different this time.


  3. +1

    Its payable, the political will isn't there. Amongst the political class, that is.

    If you are an average spod your best options are - a genuine free market, then a social democracy of some kind, then socialism, then pretty much everything else in ascending order of horror until you get to stalinist russia or similar. The elite always want to live in a stalinist russia type situation for pretty much the same reasons no one else wants to.

    leaving aside the usual moral arguments, of course.

    How it used to work and how it can only ever work in the long run is

    You have kids and work your balls off to ensure they grow into happy, productive adults who love and respect you.

    They then look after you in your old age.

    The current system takes money off people who would make fantastic parents and uses it to pay the most stupid and feckless to have as many kids as possible because they see them as a meal ticket.

    These kids then grow up and do the same until society is overrun with useless people who contribute nothing

    This inevitably ends in bankruptcy.


  4. It's complete nonsense and lies.

    Pretty much all of it.

    There is no 'burden' of supporting the elderly (who will mostly all be dead in 15-20 years anyway) and there is no reason whatsoever why everyone shouldn't retire at 65.

    This is a simple politically dogmatic argument propounded by bankers, Etonians, agents of the Monarchy and so on who desire a return to a full on single state Monarchy with 17th century levels of public spending, zero democracy and in all likelihood partition of the North.

    Anyone who votes for this or allows this (unless you're in the 0.1%) is de facto a deluded moron.

    And when they die they will be replaced by EVEN MORE elderly people - obviously!!!!!!!!

    And what happens when all the people Nu Labour shipped in to pay for our pensions (which we aren't now going to get)

    what happens when the 5-10 kids each they are having retire

    What then??????????????????????????????


  5. I hate the EU. It, like the only other two unified post war 'countries' is a disaster (czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, although the former are both in Eu so havent really split.

    I disagree that it is a German conspiracy . The EU was conceived , carried, nursed and nurtured by the French .

    Germany needed a way back into respectability and economic activity and the French provided it. The French wanted a welfare state and found someone to pay for it.

    In the final analysis only those with food, energy, and weapons can take the wealth when it becomes scarce because these are the things you need to survive.

    The production of BMW's will not help one jot when the global debt bubble bursts. The ownership of foreign assets will be of no use which is why the USA will happily inflate it's way out of its international liabilities because the bailiffs can't enter that house .

    The Germans can bully the likes of Greece Spain Italy and Ireland until the vows come home while the laziest , most spendthrift and corpulent of its creditors basks to the west with a country full of welfare junkies , nuclear power stations and fruited plains.

    Germany in the final analysis will own a massive pile of iou's which will be fit to wipe their Teutonic arses with and that's about it .

    The USA could not give a fick about the Uk being in Europe or not. It was probably a favour done to Dave , talk costs noting .

    The question is will the 'debt collectors' be sent in to seize 'goods to the value of'



  6. I remember the 1980s well. It consisted of Margaret Thatcher's constant free market mantra, that the sale of all Britain's energy infrastructure through the newly deregulated "the city" was a great thing and that we would all become shareholders with a stake in our future.

    25 years on and things couldn't have panned out in a more diametrically different reality if she'd tried.

    Nuclear and conventional energy generation owned by French and Germans, a crumbling infrastructure and dwindling energy reserves.

    Was this a deliberate act of sabotage in which our energy infrastructure was cynically sold to European interests or was she just hopelessly naive?

    One would almost go so far as saying that her actions in the 1980s under the guise of free market capitalism did far more to cement european integration (something she claimed to be so fiercely opposed to) than any of the major treaties that were signed in the 80s, 90s and 00s.

    I also remember it well and the reason we are where we are now is because she wasn't allowed to go further.

    The future is going to be far more 'free market' than many here seem to realise

    simply because there is absolutely no way of paying for any other kind of future.


  7. I know it seems counter intuitive but think about why Germany would side with a diminishing US; the petro dollar was dealt 2 deadly blows in Nov, its on the way out and the US paradigm as we know it is in its last days. Now think of energy security for Germany, developing export markets and who has massive commodity potential and thus real wealth.... Russia is not the USSR and the 20th century isn't that relevant now, the sands are shifting and there are new fortunes to be made. The next 5-10 years will be very interesting and probably very deadly for some as well.

    Not sure why Germany would need to side with the US.

    All Germany needs is for the US not to thwart its economic and political aims in Europe.

    By insisting that the UK should remain in the EU the US has chosen to side with Germany at the current time.

    Germany has always only ever been a power within the confines of mainland Europe - it has never been a Global super power.

    As such I would guess that most of the German elites foreign policy planning is based on Europe.

    What interests me is - has Germany accepted the territorial settlement at the end of WW2?

    Or does it ultimately have ambitions to recover the ancient lands it lost to Poland and Russia and others?

    Anyone have any thought on this?


  8. true to a degree,but germany/italy still have designs on holy roman empire 2.0.

    ...which would like to eliminate both US and russia to gain global hegemony.....with nuclear weapons the take-out would be quite a long-lasting affair too,if both reciprocate then all their massive oil and grain exports will be glow-in-the-dark and not much use to anyone else outside their domestic populations.

    mad mullahs make a convenient proxy for vented spleens.

    this is realpolitik....and I'm sure there are a few smart enough yanks and russians who know what the score is....and hopefully to stop it spreading.

    TBH I think we should let Germany get on with it this time.

    We should never have fought them in either WW1 or WW2 IMO.

    It was their fault that we did and they lost both times as a result.

    Perhaps they have learned their lesson and perhaps we have learned our lesson.


  9. Because as long as there is a strong EU, Germany is tied in and won't shift the paradigm to side with Russia etc. The US petro dollar based empire is already shaky enough without that

    Germany can never side with Russia

    someone once described the history of the 20th Century as the struggle between German and Russian nationalism - forget who.

    The co-operation in the 1930's was a short truce due to both nations being international pariahs

    both expected the other to double cross them at some point.

    The flash point has always and will always be who gets to dominate eastern Europe.


  10. Absolutely, Game Over.

    Or to put it another way, it's been pretty good for only one (1) country in the whole Eurozone.

    But I am not sure I subscribe to conspiracy theories about Germany deliberately 'taking over'.

    The fact is, the whole mindless expansion of the EU was pushed by NATO, in an attempt to reverse-engineer the iron curtain right up to Russia's borders. We are all really dealing with the legacy of that. From East Germany to the Baltics and Greece . . . all these countries lost their low-cost advantages and traditional Eastern focussed markets overnight. East Germany - used to build all the rolling stock for Russian trains - has never recovered. (Now Russia buys from China.) Latvia and Estonia lost exports of sprats and tourism overnight. (Don't laugh, sprats were significant revenue at one time.)

    NATO, plus the EU politburo, has screwed half of Europe, and the IMF is only now applying the thumbscrews and the kiss of death.

    I don't know how anyone can believe that this will end well.

    I don't see it as a conspiracy - I see it as inevitable demographic, social and political forces playing out over a timespan measured in decades and centuries.

    The political reasons behind the founding of the EU and the creation of the Euro are widely accepted by those who understand these matters

    what is now becoming apparent is that things have not worked out to plan and that rather than averting conflict in Europe the whole project is now in danger of creating the conditions for consequences it was supposed to prevent.

    Trouble is, the architects of the project and those whose pockets it has stuffed with gold are now utterly unwilling or unable to change course in order to avert disaster.

    The USA wants Germany tied into a Western European political, economic and military block that is capable of siezing and holding eastern Europe and facing down a potentially resurgent Russia.

    It wants this because it doesn't want the cost and sacrifice of yet another large scale military intervention in Europe.

    Our sovereignty and freedom are a small price to pay - apparently.

    We are doing what we have always done, which is participate to the extent that we prevent any one country in Europe dominating Europe and then threatening us - perfidious Albion.

    We have been prepared to pay a high economic price to achieve this, but ultimately are not prepared to sacrifice our freedom as this would defeat the object of the exercise.



  11. thumb_480_pk2.png

    This is the best chart I can quickly find for the US share of global GDP

    presumably it fell after 2007?

    but as everyone else is in the sh*t - possibly not by much.

    Someone will probably be able to find a better chart

    but the key point is - economically the EU and Euro have been a disaster for Europe

    and we will now see the political consequences of this playing out over the next 10-20 years.


  12. You're smoking crack rocks. There's scarcely any difference between the long-run economic performance of the EU and the USA, real gdp per capita has essentially doubled since 1970. The EU is the biggest and richest single-market in the world.



    So since we abandoned the Commonwealth their percentage of World trade has increased by 50% and the EU has fallen by 50%

    The EU and Euro are inexorably reducing Europe to an economic basket case.


    Having problems with the chart, however, what it shows is that in 1n 1973 the Commonwealth and EuroZones share of World trade were 10% and 25% respectively - they are now 15% and 15%.

  13. All the countries constituting the EU have been at peace with one another since founding/joining the EC/EU. These are countries that had previously been almost constantly at war with one another. The EU is, on the whole, a force for good, and I can only hope that it is able to resist the attempts of nationalists such as you to destroy it and take us back to the bad old days again. For the sake of your children as well as mine.

    I think you will find that Germany was physically divided and occupied until 1990

    Which kept the peace in Europe for 45 years.

    It is only now just over 20 years since Germany was reunited

    and we are once again on the brink of huge political and social conflict in Europe.

    What you think I am is irrelevant to historical facts and the reality facing us today

    and what I fear is likely to happen bears no relation to what I would like to happen.

    Are you really unable to understand that?


  14. I'm starting to believe the tories actually don't want to win the next election - the FLS is p**sing off just about every saver in the country and on top of all the other groups naffed of by recent policies they have no chance as it stands at the moment (i for one will vote for the UKIP first time).

    Maybe they calculate if labour and Balls get in next time and start their usual spend spend policies all the chickens will come home to roost and the economy will just about implode - labour will get the blame and be out for a generation - the tories can then step back in to raise us from the ashes of the mess that is left ...... its looking like there will be a reckoning of one sort or another before the end of the next parliament so who would want to take the hit for that ? !

    I think you are probably right actually.

    The Conservatives don't give the impression they want to win the next election.

    Whoever does will probably be destroyed politically for generations.

    The problem is Labour probably don't really want to win either.

    Pass the parcel bomb anyone?

    The trick is to hang onto the parcel until it is just about to explode

    then pass it on.


  15. Doesn't look like it. I was considering a bet on the minimum Arctic ice extent being a record this summer, but after last year's exceptional low, it probably won't be.

    Edit: Wasn't very good odds either, only 4/6, so I only won £66.66.

    Based on at least the last thousand years of European history

    the chances of the EU project ending in anything other than disaster

    really are Nil.

    And I take no pleasure in saying this because the consequences could be truly horrendous.

    As I said - the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.


  16. Well, leaving aside the fact that banks don't lend money, they extend credit, this is still bilge. The failure rate is always at least equal to the interest rate. (the purpose of interest rates is to cause failure to repay, after all.

    Again, no borrowing has occured, that isn't how the current system works. The state owns everything, so ofc it's happy to carry on pretending as long as it's bills are paid on time.

    How? The state (according to how the concept works) is both parties in the deal.

    And so what? Bankers get paid what they are owed, the state continues - the population are ******ed but neither the state nor the bankers care.

    They started printing in 1929. They printed through two world wars, umpteen recessions and the new season of barney the dinosaur. They aren't going to stop now just because of some moral argument.

    You must understand the people who make up the government don't give a toss as long as they themselves are making out ok.

    Glad to see that at least you are maintaining some sort of intellectual standard and refraining from using the term 'bankster'

    Perhaps you could use your vast influence here to persuade people that every time they use the term 'bankster'

    it just makes them look like a complete idiot



  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.