Will Hutton - The Baby Boomers And The Price Of Personal Freedom

[lets get it right]

Ohg i;m not saying don't do anything, I'm outlinign why your suggested methods won't be used by anyone with half a brain - they failed.

If only voting, chucking bricks and rioting actually brought those things into being!

Simple experiment - go outside, find a half brick. Chuck it and see how much wealth has been created.

They aren't in debt. They've been defrauded.

I don't know why you keep going on about chucking bricks and creating wealth. The relationship I was talking about was chucking bricks and changing society. Peasants revolt, Tolpuddle Martyrs, poll tax riots, suffragettes - social change didn't just happen - it happened because people took action to stand up for themselves.

Anyone who bought a house in the last x years - since they have gone up by a factor of 3, 4, 5 or 6 (depending where in the country you live) - when they look at their mortgage statements they will observe that they owe the mortgagor a lot of money. Most people call owing money being in debt.

40 years ago if they had tried to abolish grants and introduce student loans in their place, students would have burnt the universities down. Which might have been a little counter productive but the reason the powers that be did not dare to charge for university is they knew the reaction they would get. Now what reaction do they get? Is there even a National Union of Students any more? What do they do now - advise you how best to pay your boomer landlord?

[lets get it right]

Be fair, it's not really the same thing nowadays is it?

Back in the 50's radios were expensive and one set per household would be the norm, crystal sets were a sensible alternative. These days radios are so cheap I'm struggling to remember how many I own.

Knocking up an i-pad or a LCD tv in your father's shed isn't really practical unless by chance you've got a fully equiped electronics lab and a spare £100,000,000 to cover the R & D costs.

Oh and if by chance you do have space for a shed in your postage stamp of a garden and want to experiment with electronics, expect anti-terrorism police to kick down your front door and shoot you.

Fair enough.

I guess the equivalent these days is writing a game when you're 14.

[Injin]

I don't know why you keep going on about chucking bricks and creating wealth. The relationship I was talking about was chucking bricks and changing society. Peasants revolt, Tolpuddle Martyrs, poll tax riots, suffragettes - social change didn't just happen - it happened because people took action to stand up for themselves.

You sucker.

"All social change is brought about by demanding/begging things from the state."

Oh dear, oh dear.

Anyone who bought a house in the last x years - since they have gone up by a factor of 3, 4, 5 or 6 (depending where in the country you live) - when they look at their mortgage statements they will observe that they owe the mortgagor a lot of money. Most people call owing money being in debt.

Yes, but the banks lied.hence me saying "they've been defrauded."

40 years ago if they had tried to abolish grants and introduce student loans in their place, students would have burnt the universities down. Which might have been a little counter productive but the reason the powers that be did not dare to charge for university is they knew the reaction they would get. Now what reaction do they get? Is there even a National Union of Students any more? What do they do now - advise you how best to pay your boomer landlord?

They were able to pay out because of the ability to go into debt, Which is now tapped out. If you think that the demands for the grants came from anyone but placemen in the crowd....

Oh deary, deary me...

[sleepwello'nights]

Thus the expansion of the university system in recent years (also keeps the unemployment down).

Isn't the whole purpose of technology to relieve us of the burden of chores, leaving us free to enjoy the fruits of our leisure?

Isn't one of the aims of education to allow us to understand as far as we can and appreciate the world we live in?

Surely you can't really believe its just a dastardly plot to keep the populace under control?

[Injin]

Isn't the whole purpose of technology to relieve us of the burden of chores, leaving us free to enjoy the fruits of our leisure?

Isn't one of the aims of education to allow us to understand as far as we can and appreciate the world we live in?

Surely you can't really believe its just a dastardly plot to keep the populace under control?

Ofc it is.

What you wind up with is a caste system with university as it's filtering system. Those who have gone through the pointless rigmarole of getting a degree and all that goes with it, the debt, the years of semi poverty, the hierarchical reinforcement, the permission seeking(rather than aquiring mere skills) will defend the need to have the system.

[corevalue]

Isn't the whole purpose of technology to relieve us of the burden of chores, leaving us free to enjoy the fruits of our leisure?

Isn't one of the aims of education to allow us to understand as far as we can and appreciate the world we live in?

Surely you can't really believe its just a dastardly plot to keep the populace under control?

Only if you believe the current system educates, and not merely indoctrinates. I believe the side-effects of the Pavlovian training that passes for education nowadays are well-known by TPTB and exploited appropriately.

[Beggar Thy Children]

Fair enough.

I guess the equivalent these days is writing a game when you're 14.

edit: Bah

Edited August 24, 2010 by BTL Cattle

[Goat]

Fair enough.

I guess the equivalent these days is writing a game when you're 14.

File sharing, bittorrent etc.

[deeplyblue]

The trouble is, if they say "we've had enough of your crap" they'll quickly find themselves banged up. The noise restrictions on local live music venures are so strict that if a single complaint is receieved the licence holder will quickly find themselves in court with a review on their hands. This is how the boomers strangle the culture of others at the grassroots level, they own most of the property and have filled up the local councils too ensuring that nothing goes on without their explicit permission.

Organising culture now has become such a bureaucratic nightmare that I wonder why people still bother with it, a new spontaneous summer of love would find itself stamped out via the democratic boot of the policeman in no time at all.

The boomers are leaving behind quite a legacy.

The current iniquitous licensing laws mean that loud music, mostly aimed at the 18-32 drinking age groups, and football (with considerable support from Sky Sports. Murdoch in NOT a boomer, much too old) can be broadcast as loud and as long as you please, and live acts of any description need really expensive licenses with, as you rightly point out, dire consequences for the alternatives to video wall acts. This has hit the folk music scene (which I am sure you believe to be boomer music) particularly badly, since impromptu pub sessions are more or less outlawed. All sorts of other amateur music making suffer similarly.

If you want to change this then [a] complain to your council and your MP, refuse to use places which are drowned in disco pap and [c] support your alternative scene when it's available, and buy their albums when you can.

db

[deeplyblue]

Perhaps not, but their interests are roughly the same so there's little merit in dusting down the microscope so that we can distinguish between them. If we started to share the wealth more evenly in this country so that it was based upon merit rather than when you were born the boomers would soon show their true colours, and I doubt they'd be on the side of the impoverished under 30's.

If we dusted down our telescopes we might all perceive that if we were to share the wealth of the world rather more evenly that too would be a good thing. Or do the under-30s in England deserve more than the under-30s in (say) Chad?

I am not being especially high-minded here, since I am aware that I too am one of those who take for granted the luck of being born into an affluent society (e.g. where running water and an indoor toilet are legal rights) - at least most of the time. I have a relative who was born in West Africa. When she was due to give birth she was in labour for 3 days, and was eventually delivered by emergency caesarian. The doctor commented, "Well, this one wasn't coming out any other way!" We all took her survival for granted, but I thought later that had she been in the wrong part of West Africa, or even here a hundred years ago, then mother and baby would both have died.

The cry, "It's not fair!" cuts both ways.

db

[Dubai]

Divide and conquer.

[olliegog]

You'd rather blaspheme than 'swear'? Oh how I hate people who object to other people swearing. They are only words - they're just more fun than 'flip' or 'gosh'.

actually you are wrong - the g stood for goodness. Stop being so pedantic and hating people because they do not use foul language (which is fun in what way precisely). I was well brought up and if you want to use foul language I DO NOT object just don't expect me to repeat it.

[Stars]

Divide and conquer.

You mean, we're all in this together?

This usually remains true so long as nobody mentions the gargantuan mountain of unearned boomer housing wealth robbed from the productive economy and used by the boomers to command unearned services from everyone else. However, when that subject comes up we quickly become separate again and people start saying things like "every man for himself"

Edited August 25, 2010 by Stars

[Stars]

If we dusted down our telescopes we might all perceive that if we were to share the wealth of the world rather more evenly that too would be a good thing. Or do the under-30s in England deserve more than the under-30s in (say) Chad?

I am not being especially high-minded here, since I am aware that I too am one of those who take for granted the luck of being born into an affluent society (e.g. where running water and an indoor toilet are legal rights) - at least most of the time. I have a relative who was born in West Africa. When she was due to give birth she was in labour for 3 days, and was eventually delivered by emergency caesarian. The doctor commented, "Well, this one wasn't coming out any other way!" We all took her survival for granted, but I thought later that had she been in the wrong part of West Africa, or even here a hundred years ago, then mother and baby would both have died.

Yes, Chef, be thankful you aren't forced to work barefoot and naked in a shipbreaking yard

Less of your lip

Edited August 25, 2010 by Stars

[Postigol]

lets not forget of course that gen x and y do protest about some stuff in a pretty dedicated, meaningful way - iraq war, the environment, runway 3, fox hunting etc - it's just that they have been bought up to be so grateful for what they've got that they are not selfish enough to protest about the things that directly affect the - there's this worthiness about getting involved in all this stuff, compared to when you look at the poll tax riots which was people looking after their own interests directly. Noticeable also that green agenda stuff is something that is quite heavily studied in the education system now (when they learn about "issues").

[lets get it right]

actually you are wrong - the g stood for goodness. Stop being so pedantic and hating people because they do not use foul language (which is fun in what way precisely). I was well brought up and if you want to use foul language I DO NOT object just don't expect me to repeat it.

Okay ... but, most people acknowledge that 'God' and 'Good' are pretty much interchangeable and that someone who says 'For goodness' sake' is actually saying 'For God's sake' in the same way that people say 'cripes' instead of 'Christ' etc.

I didn't say I hate people who don't use 'foul' language - I may have said I 'hate' people who disapprove of people who use 'foul' language. (For 'hate' substitute 'irritating') Are you saying I was not well brought up because I use words like f u c k i n g as an adjective? I'd beg to differ there. I was brought up strictly by parents who had a great sense of right and wrong and who imparted those values to me.

As for saying you do not object to people swearing in the same sentence as saying you were well brought up - your implication is that people who swear were not well brought up. Patronising nonsense.

[Tired of Waiting]

That is my main problem with the previous generation. They have houses already, bought very cheaply, and they keep kicking the ladder behind them.

Daily Mail news: "when it (a field) went up for auction there were fears that the beauty spot would be bought by developers for a housing estate. However the 13 acres will remain green for ever after neighbours clubbed together to buy it. (...) it will be spared forever from housing developers (...) in 1995 a planning application for more than 30 homes was narrowly rejected."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305700/Derbyshire-villagers-raise-120-000-buy-field-halt-housing-development.html

There are two threads debating it (could be merged?)

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=149925&view=findpost&p=2686112

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=149916&view=findpost&p=2685963

Edited August 25, 2010 by Tired of Waiting

[Injin]

You mean, we're all in this together?

This usually remains true so long as nobody mentions the gargantuan mountain of unearned boomer housing wealth robbed from the productive economy and used by the boomers to command unearned services from everyone else. However, when that subject comes up we quickly become separate again and people start saying things like "every man for himself"

A generation of lawyers, building the case from the aim of the moment.

[deeplyblue]

Yes, Chef, be thankful you aren't forced to work barefoot and naked in a shipbreaking yard

Less of your lip

You should have read what I said more carefully. I said that we should all be grateful that we are not working naked in a shipbreaking yard, or covered with a burqa in the fields of Somalia.

I recently lost someone dear to me, and spent time railing about how unfair it was, since if the local council had given him the help to which he was legally entitled he would probably not have died, that the NHS hospital told him to go away and die because they couldn't help (and didn't want him cluttering up their nice statistics), that I'd been convinced he had another 4 or 5 years in him and various other items on the list of why he should not have died then.

I reminded myself, reluctantly, that he was 80, that the system that let him down this time had saved his life with a triple bypass operation 10 years earlier, that he was himself, and in possession of his faculties to the end, and that he did not suffer long. And finally that had he been living in the less advantaged part of the world he would have had a worse life, died sooner and suffered more. Compare what happened to him with what has happened to many others elsewhere in the world, or anywhere in the past, and it became painfully obvious that in the "fair" stakes he won out - taking it all together. It could have been so much worse, even if it should have been better.

It was from that hard-won bit of learning that I said, "Fair cuts both ways."

db

Edited August 27, 2010 by deeplyblue