Rees-Mogg "Stop overseas charity - put money into housing"

[jonb2]

5 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I can't disagree with that, although I am not sure if a basic income will work.

There certainly are doubts. The results are mixed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots#Pilots_in_United_States_in_the_1960s_and_1970s

I think a good society, one that works cohesively, guards its inclusivity. It's tribal, people want to feel part of something, to contribute. Whatever we have done here and in the US (worse) - does not manage this. There is resentment on both sides, mistrust.

Mankind is a test lab. We need to improve, to progress. The dog-eat-dog ways of the last 40 years does not seem to make anybody particularly happy - even the rich.

[BorrowToLeech]

1 minute ago, iamnumerate said:

Surely social norms are from wider things rather than just neoliberalism, changes in the 1960s (btw generous benefits to single mums happened before Thatcher even in the 60s people were complaining about them).

I don't have time for a proper answer, but the short answer is that we are a neoliberal culture. It's not just politicians and policies, although they matter, it's about the way people think about the world.

For example, rappers and models all pretending to be entrepreneurs, that's a bit odd isn't it? 

Whilst Thatcherism is a useful label, and she marks a turning point in history, those ideas existed anyway.

Social norms are, like the green belt, a conservative concept.  Are we a society that values tradition, and family or a society that values wealth and individualism?  

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Surely social norms are from wider things rather than just neoliberalism, changes in the 1960s (btw generous benefits to single mums happened before Thatcher even in the 60s people were complaining about them).

Not the sixties so much Iam - it was no blacks, no Irish then. Housing was tougher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Come_Home

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman

 

Edited July 11, 2017 by jonb2

[canbuywontbuy]

On 07/07/2017 at 4:18 PM, Social Justice League said:

When did it become government policy to get people into as much debt as possible?

I though it was all about living within our means and austerity..........but not for anyone who needs shelter it seems.

This is the hypocrisy in a nutshell.

And of course, there was no real austerity.  The business-savvy, small-government Tories doubled the national debt in 6 years "in the age of austerity" no less!

[ThoughtCriminal]

We're basking in the warm afterglow of Christianity. The embers will be go out entirely soon, that's when the real fun starts.

 

You've seen nothing yet.

 

As Peter Hitchens often remarks when asked for his advice to the young:

 

"Emigrate"

[winkie]

 

[Dorkins]

On 7/10/2017 at 7:17 AM, spyguy said:

Tories were prepared to see house prices crash and banks fail. Labour were not.

Have you been in a coma for the last 10 years? The Tories supported the bank bailouts in 2008. Osborne pumped up his 'nice little housing boom'.

[spyguy]

9 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Have you been in a coma for the last 10 years? The Tories supported the bank bailouts in 2008. Osborne pumped up his 'nice little housing boom'.

The *ast* lot of Cons were!

We had a useless coalition who did not want to do anything from 2010-2016

And, yes, Giditiot/Camoon will go down as some of the worse PM/Chan, trying to carry on Brown's lunacy. As well as Brexit.

[Blod]

15 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

This is the hypocrisy in a nutshell.

And of course, there was no real austerity.  The business-savvy, small-government Tories doubled the national debt in 6 years "in the age of austerity" no less!

Your statement only goes to demonstrate the size of the deficit. In 2010 they started with an annual deficit of £103 Billion and claimed that they would be able to clear by that 2015 so we could start to pay off our national debt and avoid painful interest payments. Now it's 2017 and despite the lie of austerity we are still borrowing £69 Billion every year just to cover our public sector . 

We maybe grasping at straws if we think that we could 'borrow to invest' to solve our deficit. Interest rates will start to climb and as they do we have less and less to fund the public sector as interest payment spiral on the debt, that is yet another poison legacy we leave for our children. Do we elect a government that believes in a sovereign form of BTL, where a country borrows in an attempt to get rich? 

[canbuywontbuy]

3 hours ago, Blod said:

Your statement only goes to demonstrate the size of the deficit. In 2010 they started with an annual deficit of £103 Billion and claimed that they would be able to clear by that 2015 so we could start to pay off our national debt and avoid painful interest payments. Now it's 2017 and despite the lie of austerity we are still borrowing £69 Billion every year just to cover our public sector . 

We maybe grasping at straws if we think that we could 'borrow to invest' to solve our deficit. Interest rates will start to climb and as they do we have less and less to fund the public sector as interest payment spiral on the debt, that is yet another poison legacy we leave for our children. Do we elect a government that believes in a sovereign form of BTL, where a country borrows in an attempt to get rich? 

I've never understood how the younger generations were against austerity (because it's "cool" to be against it?) - accepting a yearly deficit of £70Bn+ year and £1.8Tn debt is condemning them to a very poor future.  At some point in the future these younger people will be older and complaining about why there are even bigger cuts to public spending because the government are servicing a massive debt (already paying about £1.5Bn a week on interested alone right now).  So many economically illiterate people about who are just mindlessly "protestings against the 1%" - unless they support the EU, then they are for them (and so it goes).

Edited July 12, 2017 by canbuywontbuy

[PopGun]

On 10/07/2017 at 7:17 AM, spyguy said:

Tories were prepared to see house prices crash and banks fail. Labour were not.

Even by your standards, that's simply stunning.

[spyguy]

30 minutes ago, PopGun said:

Even by your standards, that's simply stunning.

In he late 80s, the COns fckedu p - pretty minorly compare to Brown.

They carried on alet houses drop ~50% inthe SE.

 

Brown fcked up beyond the scale of anything seen in the UK.

Rather than accept it, they introduced the likes of SMI, bank bails out, everything other than let the pain fall.

Gidiot, despite not clearing the deficit did not reduce a -12% (you might want to repeat that a few times, when 4% was seen as fckup) to ~4% deficit.

Me personally, Id have been a happy wth a massive cut to public spending - proper austerity. Portugal and Spain have seen that.

The UK has just shuffled stuff around to suit he bankers and their pol shills.

[iamnumerate]

44 minutes ago, spyguy said:

In he late 80s, the COns fckedu p - pretty minorly compare to Brown.

They carried on alet houses drop ~50% inthe SE.

 

Brown fcked up beyond the scale of anything seen in the UK.

Rather than accept it, they introduced the likes of SMI, bank bails out, everything other than let the pain fall.

Gidiot, despite not clearing the deficit did not reduce a -12% (you might want to repeat that a few times, when 4% was seen as fckup) to ~4% deficit.

Me personally, Id have been a happy wth a massive cut to public spending - proper austerity. Portugal and Spain have seen that.

The UK has just shuffled stuff around to suit he bankers and their pol shills.

Very true, of course in 91 no banks needed rescuing a big difference with 2007.

 

[Blod]

6 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

I've never understood how the younger generations were against austerity (because it's "cool" to be against it?) - accepting a yearly deficit of £70Bn+ year and £1.8Tn debt is condemning them to a very poor future.  At some point in the future these younger people will be older and complaining about why there are even bigger cuts to public spending because the government are servicing a massive debt (already paying about £1.5Bn a week on interested alone right now).  So many economically illiterate people about who are just mindlessly "protestings against the 1%" - unless they support the EU, then they are for them (and so it goes).

Same here, why all the angst about student loans whilst their government spends their futures today. Its just so hypocritical.

[crashmonitor]

11 minutes ago, Blod said:

Same here, why all the angst about student loans whilst their government spends their futures today. Its just so hypocritical.

I think the write off of student debt has a lot to do with Labour's resurgence. Also parents of graduates supporting Labour.

But it's a bit of a Trojan horse because most benefits go to the old. And it will be the young who wont get their retirements funded if we continue to live beyond our means now.

Edited July 12, 2017 by crashmonitor

[Blod]

1 hour ago, crashmonitor said:

I think the write off of student debt has a lot to do with Labour's resurgence. Also parents of graduates supporting Labour.

But it's a bit of a Trojan horse because most benefits go to the old. And it will be the young who wont get their retirements funded if we continue to live beyond our means now.

We are living through a time of 'live for now' don't worry about the future. I suppose its to be expected we have seen a near decade of upside policy, savers punished and the feckless rewarded what else can we expect.

[canbuywontbuy]

8 hours ago, Blod said:

We are living through a time of 'live for now' don't worry about the future. I suppose its to be expected we have seen a near decade of upside policy, savers punished and the feckless rewarded what else can we expect.

This has now been ingrained into everything.  I never knew economics would get so desperate like the alcoholic trying to stave off the hangover with "just one more beer".  We've been having one more beer for nearly 10 years now since the last "crash". 

[Blod]

2 hours ago, canbuywontbuy said:

This has now been ingrained into everything.  I never knew economics would get so desperate like the alcoholic trying to stave off the hangover with "just one more beer".  We've been having one more beer for nearly 10 years now since the last "crash". 

I know people you buy everything on credit. Each month they clear space on their credit card balance to buy what they need whilst just topping back up to maximum allowed. They seem totally blind to the fact that they literally are pay hundreds a month to the card companies just run such large balances. One of these individuals seems to actually think this is good ?

[canbuywontbuy]

2 hours ago, Blod said:

I know people you buy everything on credit. Each month they clear space on their credit card balance to buy what they need whilst just topping back up to maximum allowed. They seem totally blind to the fact that they literally are pay hundreds a month to the card companies just run such large balances. One of these individuals seems to actually think this is good ?

I remember speaking with someone who was letting their flat out.  90% mortgage on it.  He literally divided the purchase price by monthly rental and said "14 years of rent money will pay this off".  He forgot about the interest, letting fees and maintenance costs (let alone voids).  The interest alone added 50% to his purchase cost. I pointed this out, and it was like it was a small thing - "oh yeah, there's some costs too, but it's a good investment".  I don't think he'd actually considered the interest is something EXTRA to the capital - just about the monthly repayments init - who cares what they're made of - better to forget about the interest and pretend it's just the capital you're paying off.

[crashmonitor]

2 hours ago, Blod said:

I know people you buy everything on credit. Each month they clear space on their credit card balance to buy what they need whilst just topping back up to maximum allowed. They seem totally blind to the fact that they literally are pay hundreds a month to the card companies just run such large balances. One of these individuals seems to actually think this is good ?

We shouldn't be too surprised when the electorate demand jam today and use convenient tags like Austerity to describe a doubling of the National Debt as they live their lives like the Government manages its finances.

And if you have lived for today then you have nothing to lose like cash savings or a pension pot that is not index linked. 

Meanwhile those that did save are at risk of seeing their savings magicked away in order that the debt can be magicked away too.

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, canbuywontbuy said:

I remember speaking with someone who was letting their flat out.  90% mortgage on it.  He literally divided the purchase price by monthly rental and said "14 years of rent money will pay this off".  He forgot about the interest, letting fees and maintenance costs (let alone voids).  The interest alone added 50% to his purchase cost. I pointed this out, and it was like it was a small thing - "oh yeah, there's some costs too, but it's a good investment".  I don't think he'd actually considered the interest is something EXTRA to the capital - just about the monthly repayments init - who cares what they're made of - better to forget about the interest and pretend it's just the capital you're paying off.

A depressing anecdote.

[bear.getting.old]

On 07/07/2017 at 0:29 PM, The Young and the Nestless said:

If countries like the UK reduce foreign aid, and that stabilising force is removed from those countries, you could begin to see more civil wars, and later an increase in the refugee crisis which would later place an increased demand on our housing domestically. 

So foreign aid is basically a bribe to corrupt governments to keep the peace. It does nothing to eliminate poverty because those governments keep it so they can claim more foriegn aid. Eg India, who are so poor they have a space program. Your logic is flawed. Throwing money at countries to keep migrants away from the UK isn't going to work. Only a strict closed border policy is and a clampdown on illegals with records kept of who leaves and who enters.

[PopGun]

21 hours ago, spyguy said:

In he late 80s, the COns fckedu p - pretty minorly compare to Brown.

They carried on alet houses drop ~50% inthe SE.

 

Brown fcked up beyond the scale of anything seen in the UK.

Rather than accept it, they introduced the likes of SMI, bank bails out, everything other than let the pain fall.

Gidiot, despite not clearing the deficit did not reduce a -12% (you might want to repeat that a few times, when 4% was seen as fckup) to ~4% deficit.

Me personally, Id have been a happy wth a massive cut to public spending - proper austerity. Portugal and Spain have seen that.

The UK has just shuffled stuff around to suit he bankers and their pol shills.

Carry on comparing apples with oranges, along with repeating to yourself over and over that Cam, Oz and co would have called their mates' bluff and allowed the banks to fail.

[iamnumerate]

18 minutes ago, PopGun said:

Carry on comparing apples with oranges, along with repeating to yourself over and over that Cam, Oz and co would have called their mates' bluff and allowed the banks to fail.

In 1992 the ERM went badly wrong and the Tories got blamed (quite rightly as they were in charge), the fact that the other parties supported the policy was not a defence for the Tories.  The same for 2007 - maybe the Tories would have done the same but they didn't do it.  You can only get blamed for what you did.

[Blod]

3 hours ago, crashmonitor said:

We shouldn't be too surprised when the electorate demand jam today and use convenient tags like Austerity to describe a doubling of the National Debt as they live their lives like the Government manages its finances.

And if you have lived for today then you have nothing to lose like cash savings or a pension pot that is not index linked. 

Meanwhile those that did save are at risk of seeing their savings magicked away in order that the debt can be magicked away too.

Thing is those savings won't even cover the interest payments  for more than a few years. The 'living for today' will only work for a few years then reality will batter down the door and lay waste to the feckless.