tomandlu Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I thought I'd stick in a word of support for the 'sheeple' (or at least the suggestion that it's a demeaning and illogical construct). Many on this site like to characterise them as X-Factor watching, fag-smoking chavs (another suspect word imho), and even those who admit that that is rather reductionist seem to happily heap scorn on them for their financial naivety. I would humbly suggest that a working knowledge of MBSs, CDSs, FRB, shadow-banking, fiat, etc. should not be essential in life. If I'm unlucky enough to become seriously ill with, say, heart-disease, I would sincerely hope that I can count on the knowledge of a cardiologist, rather than being dependant on my own rather rudimentary understanding of biology. And that very same cardiologist might well not be able to explain FRB, but why the hell should he? His spare research time is, I hope, spent reading cardiology papers rather than trawling financial blogs. I've been taking an off-hand interest in economics for a couple of years now, and I still need a bit of paper to check that I've remembered the details... ... so, a lot of people took out loans that, realistically, they can probably not pay back, particularly if/when interest rates go up. And if I was a cardiologist, I might feel rightfully annoyed with a patient who ate nothing but chips all day... however, in this case, the cardiologist has been the one prescribing the chips, telling us all that they were a perfectly healthy diet, and crashing the whole financial system in the process. Bottom line, we should be able to trust professionals enough not to need a first class degree in economics every time we want to use a cash point, and when they screw up, we should hold them to account, not the 'sheeple'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 ... so, a lot of people took out loans that, realistically, they can probably not pay back, particularly if/when interest rates go up. And if I was a cardiologist, I might feel rightfully annoyed with a patient who ate nothing but chips all day... however, in this case, the cardiologist has been the one prescribing the chips, telling us all that they were a perfectly healthy diet, and crashing the whole financial system in the process. Bottom line, we should be able to trust professionals enough not to need a first class degree in economics every time we want to use a cash point, and when they screw up, we should hold them to account, not the 'sheeple'. +1 Imagine a supermarket that sold fresh meat with no hygiene regulations or checks - and then when customers get ill, blamed them to not checking the meat first. It's actually worse than that, since handing out credit like confetti has the result of bidding up prices even for the prudent, or crashing the economy for the hard-working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rantnrave Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) If I was diagnosed with a major illness, I might not have been able to have avoided it, but I would do as much as I can to read up on it and get informed. The wealth of information out there and ability to access it is greater than at any time in history. What I can't understand therefore is why so many people in this country over the last decade, who were about to make the biggest financial decision of their lives, seemingly looked little beyond how much the first six months' mortgage payments would cost them and jumped in. Sure, not everyone is a PhD candidate, but there are plenty of 'smart' people who bought into the idea that house prices only ever go up. A good many of them still believe that too and will rely on tabloids for their arguments. Edited July 11, 2011 by rantnrave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I thought I'd stick in a word of support for the 'sheeple' (or at least the suggestion that it's a demeaning and illogical construct). Many on this site like to characterise them as X-Factor watching, fag-smoking chavs (another suspect word imho), and even those who admit that that is rather reductionist seem to happily heap scorn on them for their financial naivety. I would humbly suggest that a working knowledge of MBSs, CDSs, FRB, shadow-banking, fiat, etc. should not be essential in life. If I'm unlucky enough to become seriously ill with, say, heart-disease, I would sincerely hope that I can count on the knowledge of a cardiologist, rather than being dependant on my own rather rudimentary understanding of biology. And that very same cardiologist might well not be able to explain FRB, but why the hell should he? His spare research time is, I hope, spent reading cardiology papers rather than trawling financial blogs. I've been taking an off-hand interest in economics for a couple of years now, and I still need a bit of paper to check that I've remembered the details... ... so, a lot of people took out loans that, realistically, they can probably not pay back, particularly if/when interest rates go up. And if I was a cardiologist, I might feel rightfully annoyed with a patient who ate nothing but chips all day... however, in this case, the cardiologist has been the one prescribing the chips, telling us all that they were a perfectly healthy diet, and crashing the whole financial system in the process. Bottom line, we should be able to trust professionals enough not to need a first class degree in economics every time we want to use a cash point, and when they screw up, we should hold them to account, not the 'sheeple'. No! No! No! Your arguement is analogous with people getting burnt blaming the shop for selling them matches. People who buy houses are supposed to be adults. We take responsibility for our decisions, whether or not we bothered to research them or not. I bought in Dublin in Feb '05, and I wake up each morning regretting that decision. But it was my decision, and I live with it instead of bleating about it. People making the "biggest financial decision in their life" should not be depending on some character in a shiny suit spoon-feeding them. Nor should they blame him if the decision doesn't work out. If they make that decision without doing any research, they deserve what comes to them.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 No! No! No! Your arguement is analogous with people getting burnt blaming the shop for selling them matches. So are you a sheeple? (sheeperson?) I would say that it is analogous to the shop selling the matches telling the customer that there is no way the matches could burn. It's worth remembering that, apparently, houses going down in value was considered a 23 sigma event. This was what was 'sold' - essentially a cast-iron guarantee that an HPC was about the most unlikely event in the history of the universe (23 sigma! That's an event that should occur about once every 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years ffs) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 ... so, a lot of people took out loans that, realistically, they can probably not pay back, particularly if/when interest rates go up. And if I was a cardiologist, I might feel rightfully annoyed with a patient who ate nothing but chips all day... however, in this case, the cardiologist has been the one prescribing the chips, telling us all that they were a perfectly healthy diet, and crashing the whole financial system in the process. The "sheeple" were by and large hoping to profiteer from the next generation of buys having to pay even more money than they did. They got burned. Tough shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The "sheeple" were by and large hoping to profiteer from the next generation of buyers having to pay even more money than they did. They got burned. Tough shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 So are you a sheeple? (sheeperson?) I would say that it is analogous to the shop selling the matches telling the customer that there is no way the matches could burn. It's worth remembering that, apparently, houses going down in value was considered a 23 sigma event. This was what was 'sold' - essentially a cast-iron guarantee that an HPC was about the most unlikely event in the history of the universe (23 sigma! That's an event that should occur about once every 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 years ffs) Yes, I am a member of the herd/flock. However, I'm also big enough & bold enough to live with the consequences of my decisions, and to do better the next time (which ironically means moving to the UK now...... ). For too long a system meant to help people in genuine hardship has been used to insulate us from the consequences of our decisions. Get knocked up? Have a flat. Can't afford your liar based mortgage? Have some SMI. Don't take reasonable care of yourself? Go on the disability. Buy at a historically ridiculous price? We'll prop up the market for you....... Knowing that nobody will bail you out if you get it wrong has a wonderful way of focussing the mind...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) No! No! No! Your arguement is analogous with people getting burnt blaming the shop for selling them matches. People who buy houses are supposed to be adults. We take responsibility for our decisions, whether or not we bothered to research them or not. I bought in Dublin in Feb '05, and I wake up each morning regretting that decision. But it was my decision, and I live with it instead of bleating about it. People making the "biggest financial decision in their life" should not be depending on some character in a shiny suit spoon-feeding them. Nor should they blame him if the decision doesn't work out. If they make that decision without doing any research, they deserve what comes to them.......... If you are going to have currency and credit issued by a specially licensed select few whos one single purpose for having the advantage of license is the efficient allocation of Capital, it is simply not the borrowers fault, it is the allocator of Capitals fault, its the only thing they are being paid for. People tend to be a bit crap at finance (blame schooling for that) unless they are sad enough to have a genuine interest in it. Yes they have to live with the decision but its not really their fault, they dont whine any more than the savers on here who in reality were equally stupid to give the banks their money to lend (not that the systems gives much choice) House prices are especially emotive because you cant be excluded from them, with the rent laws in the UK people were unsuprisingly rash driven by fear as much as greed, and do some research? 90% of the research from academia in the highest quarters and 100% from TV was telling people to pile in. In reality Bankers and politicians should be doing porridge, instead the popn were prepared to bail out one lot and reelect half the other lot, thats what they deserve blame for Edited July 11, 2011 by georgia o'keeffe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I don't agree with this position in respect of the banks or many other situations. I have to admit to being on that side in the past but have altered my conclusions in subsequent years. I feel the banks have a duty of care towards their customers. Customers are not there to be confused, hoodwinked and missold. I don't agree that all is fair in love and war and 'buyer beware' because the information and power on the two sides is completely asymmetric. I have come to the conclusion that there should be much more regulation not less...even down to how interest is calculated, what products may be sold and offered and for what benefits to the target consumers. That profit margins are strictly regulated (such as the exhorbitant levels on PPI). What we should see is far fewer products sold and strict guidelines as to how they are priced. For instance, how many electricity products do we really need and why? How have we managed to introduce the equivalent of the past issues problem on savings into all utility contracts now? No - more regulation, far fewer and closely regulated products allowed. No more rip off promotional type offers that simply subsidise the canny versus the unabe/uninterested/uneducated. The weak need protection. I actually think the people working at the companies themselves would also like to go down this route, because without it, the competitive imperative becomes too powerful in pushing behaviour the wrong way. Yes, where the banksters have mis-sold products, let them face consequences and be regulated. However, where people allowed themselves to be blinded by greed, they need to pay for their own errors...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 ...if you think about it there are a lot of people in from all corners of society that income solely relies on the misfortune of others, be it their poor health, lack of housing, lack of employment, lack of education, lack of financial astuteness and awareness, lack of information, old age, crime, death, divorce.....any number of things that come to the best of us during life. .....think of many jobs, most of them make money from other peoples failings, needs and wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) I thought I'd stick in a word of support for the 'sheeple' (or at least the suggestion that it's a demeaning and illogical construct). Many on this site like to characterise them as X-Factor watching, fag-smoking chavs (another suspect word imho), and even those who admit that that is rather reductionist seem to happily heap scorn on them for their financial naivety. I would humbly suggest that a working knowledge of MBSs, CDSs, FRB, shadow-banking, fiat, etc. should not be essential in life. If I'm unlucky enough to become seriously ill with, say, heart-disease, I would sincerely hope that I can count on the knowledge of a cardiologist, rather than being dependant on my own rather rudimentary understanding of biology. And that very same cardiologist might well not be able to explain FRB, but why the hell should he? His spare research time is, I hope, spent reading cardiology papers rather than trawling financial blogs. I've been taking an off-hand interest in economics for a couple of years now, and I still need a bit of paper to check that I've remembered the details... ... so, a lot of people took out loans that, realistically, they can probably not pay back, particularly if/when interest rates go up. And if I was a cardiologist, I might feel rightfully annoyed with a patient who ate nothing but chips all day... however, in this case, the cardiologist has been the one prescribing the chips, telling us all that they were a perfectly healthy diet, and crashing the whole financial system in the process. Bottom line, we should be able to trust professionals enough not to need a first class degree in economics every time we want to use a cash point, and when they screw up, we should hold them to account, not the 'sheeple'. Your analogy is a bit half-cocked isn't it? It's not so much the lack of technical knowledge, which is perfectly understandable as you point out. It's more about the modus operandi of the people participating in the housing ponzi. For me, 'sheeple' as a derogatory term refers more to a person's malleable amorality, unquestioning greed, indignant narcissism and poverty of spirit. With that definition in mind - the quintessential consumer zombie - I am unhappy to say I live amongst a society of sheeple. Edited July 11, 2011 by 50sQuiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The "sheeple" were by and large hoping to profiteer from the next generation of buys having to pay even more money than they did. They got burned. Tough shit. Outside of the BTL brigade, I don't buy this at all. The vast majority were trying to do the 'normal' thing, buy a house to settle down and raise a family. It's only in the world of finance that every transaction anyone ever makes is automatically treated as a chance to profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 If I was diagnosed with a major illness, I might not have been able to have avoided it, but I would do as much as I can to read up on it and get informed. The wealth of information out there and ability to access it is greater than at any time in history. What I can't understand therefore is why so many people in this country over the last decade, who were about to make the biggest financial decision of their lives, seemingly looked little beyond how much the first six months' mortgage payments would cost them and jumped in. Sure, not everyone is a PhD candidate, but there are plenty of 'smart' people who bought into the idea that house prices only ever go up. A good many of them still believe that too and will rely on tabloids for their arguments. Exactly. And if you were signign up to an agreemnt for probably a thrid of your entire lifetime ? I would be doing some serious investigations prior to letting the ink dry. And with the internet and all today - lots of info is available. I don't blame people for getting sucked in by it. No great surprise. We all get sucked in by various things. I do however blame people for being stupid enough to sign up for decades of debt without doing any research into it at all. These people deserve no sympathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 Your analogy is a bit half-cocked isn't it? It's not so much the lack of technical knowledge, which is perfectly understandable as you point out. It's more about the modus operandi of the people participating in the housing ponzi. For me, 'sheeple' as a derogatory term refers more to a person's malleable amorality, unquestioning greed, indignant narcissism and poverty of spirit. With that definition in mind - the quintessential consumer zombie - I am unhappy to say I live amongst a society of sheeple. But those are all highly subjective terms, rather than fact-based evaluations. Were people aware that the whole HPI thing HAD to be a ponzi scheme? Even BTLers were following, largely, what seemed like a sensible option, given the appalling returns on a private pension in this country. For the rest, a lot of people just wanted somewhere to live. I'm not denying that, fundamentally, people should have noticed there was a funny smell about it all, but with so many assurances going about, it's easy to see why that sense didn't kick in in the way it should have done. Remember, people borrowing this money, if nothing else, had a reasonable expectation that the lender wanted to get their money back, so why would lenders make highly-leveraged loans that had no chance of being recovered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I thought I'd stick in a word of support for the 'sheeple' (or at least the suggestion that it's a demeaning and illogical construct). Many on this site like to characterise them as X-Factor watching, fag-smoking chavs (another suspect word imho), and even those who admit that that is rather reductionist seem to happily heap scorn on them for their financial naivety. I would humbly suggest that a working knowledge of MBSs, CDSs, FRB, shadow-banking, fiat, etc. should not be essential in life. If I'm unlucky enough to become seriously ill with, say, heart-disease, I would sincerely hope that I can count on the knowledge of a cardiologist, rather than being dependant on my own rather rudimentary understanding of biology. And that very same cardiologist might well not be able to explain FRB, but why the hell should he? His spare research time is, I hope, spent reading cardiology papers rather than trawling financial blogs. I've been taking an off-hand interest in economics for a couple of years now, and I still need a bit of paper to check that I've remembered the details... ... so, a lot of people took out loans that, realistically, they can probably not pay back, particularly if/when interest rates go up. And if I was a cardiologist, I might feel rightfully annoyed with a patient who ate nothing but chips all day... however, in this case, the cardiologist has been the one prescribing the chips, telling us all that they were a perfectly healthy diet, and crashing the whole financial system in the process. Bottom line, we should be able to trust professionals enough not to need a first class degree in economics every time we want to use a cash point, and when they screw up, we should hold them to account, not the 'sheeple'. ...the problem is the lack of personal responsibility and the need to blame someone else...characteristics of today.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 ...the problem is the lack of personal responsibility and the need to blame someone else...characteristics of today.... And if someone else is to blame? Bear in mind that we're talking not just about whether people should take responsibility for their own personal decisions, we're talking about an event (and the actions leading up to that event) that has trashed several nations... and for that, I'm not blaming the 'sheeple'... I only escaped due to a bit of luck, plus a strong memory of what happened to an aunt and uncle at the beginning of the '90s, but it could easily have gone the other way. So now my savings are being screwed, and I know who I judge responsible for this mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 And if someone else is to blame? Bear in mind that we're talking not just about whether people should take responsibility for their own personal decisions, we're talking about an event (and the actions leading up to that event) that has trashed several nations... and for that, I'm not blaming the 'sheeple'... I only escaped due to a bit of luck, plus a strong memory of what happened to an aunt and uncle at the beginning of the '90s, but it could easily have gone the other way. So now my savings are being screwed, and I know who I judge responsible for this mess. Who do you judge responsible for the mess? The bankers who lent irresponsibly, knowing they would be bailed out? The politicians bailing out the banks because they don't want a HPC with foreclosures and '90s negatve equity? The sheeple who would punish the politicians for letting a HPC happen? The sheeple want to deny reality. The pols don't want to uspet the flock, so they prop up the banksters......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The sheep people weren't to blame. How many of you check the maintenance schedule off a plane you are about to catch or check through the hand luggage of the other passengers? Do you insist on checking the brake fluid level before jumping in a taxi? We all rely on professional knowing what they are doing. I blame Gordon Brown and the banksters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) Outside of the BTL brigade, I don't buy this at all. The vast majority were trying to do the 'normal' thing, buy a house to settle down and raise a family. It's only in the world of finance that every transaction anyone ever makes is automatically treated as a chance to profit. That's not my experience fluffy. Do your friends and family with no interest in finance seem to turn into George Soros when discussing their houses, kids' houses and outlook for the market? I know mine do. Even now! Just look at the property porn and other bile the media have churned out for nearly a decade. This is like a giant window into the population's psyche and their warped values. I'd propose to you that the media have one role and one role only: to create a platform for advertisers that accurately reflects and targets the values, hopes and fears of the audience. They do this incredibly well for the most part, because it's the basis for their existence. And that's before we've even considered the sins of omission on behalf of ordinary people and the media, where the criminality (LIAR LOANS) and deleterious effects of the housing boom on society have been ignored. Edited July 11, 2011 by 50sQuiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 The sheep people weren't to blame. How many of you check the maintenance schedule off a plane you are about to catch or check through the hand luggage of the other passengers? Do you insist on checking the brake fluid level before jumping in a taxi? We all rely on professional knowing what they are doing. I blame Gordon Brown and the banksters. Are you saying that people innocently participated in this scheme because they simply saw housing as a place to live? In the same way that flying away on holiday is just a relaxing break from work? All the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm amazed at the apologists on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 And if someone else is to blame? ...when it's a case of people buying into the credit orgy...no ...you can't blame someone else....only clowns did not see it was not 'the' thing to do ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50sQuiff Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 But those are all highly subjective terms, rather than fact-based evaluations. True enough, but what has subjectivity got to do with it? Sheeple isn't an objective term in the same sense that calling someone a greedy moron isn't an objective term. That doesn't preclude someone from making the observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Are you saying that people innocently participated in this scheme because they simply saw housing as a place to live? In the same way that flying away on holiday is just a relaxing break from work? All the evidence suggests otherwise. I'm amazed at the apologists on this thread. But even If you do research there is no guarantee. The gold bugs will tell you you are a fool for holding fiat. But the gold bugs may just be the biggest fool. I though house prices were to high in 2001 but still bought because I needed some where to live and was prepared for a small fall. Every thing that happens in life is 50% luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John The Pessimist Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 But even If you do research there is no guarantee. The gold bugs will tell you you are a fool for holding fiat. But the gold bugs may just be the biggest fool. I though house prices were to high in 2001 but still bought because I needed some where to live and was prepared for a small fall. Every thing that happens in life is 50% luck. And luck implies that your decision is a gamble. You accept it could go pear shaped, and you don't expect to be bailed out. R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y 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.