Doom & Gloom?
-
Personally, I think Sir David Tang summed it up best: "What we all need to do is to sit down and calm down and go back to basics. And most important of all, shed our sense of pessimism."
-
"What we all need to do is to sit down and calm down and go back to basics. And most important of all, shed our sense of pessimism."
Great advise for those that are not effected by lay offs or looming retrenchment, a moot point for those that really have been effected by this calamity however.
Pretty hard to go back to basics when you find yourself unemployed or even under employed is it? unless he means going back to subsistance farming by 'basics'. -
@unknownuser said:
Great advise for those that are not effected by lay offs or looming retrenchment, a moot point for those that really have been effected by this calamity however.
Pretty hard to go back to basics when you find yourself unemployed or even under employed is it? unless he means going back to subsistance farming by 'basics'.No, actually I think it's good advice for everyone. And I doubt he means "subsistence farming"...
Really, how long does anyone think the economic "bubble" can expand before it bursts? You don't get "unlimited growth" without shrinkage somewhere along the line. The "shrinkage" in this case was exacerbated in part by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and over speculative lending practices among other things...
The upside of this is that the whole "system" has come under scrutiny, and the taxpayers and common everyday citizens are now more aware of just how deeply banks are intertwined in all aspects of commerce and the global economy. Hopefully, we'll learn something from this and improve upon it...
Sure, the "Great Recession" totally sucks, and I do feel badly for those who are now unemployed or facing unemployment or other cutbacks. But the system couldn't have continued to function for much longer anyway...
It wasn't a matter of if there was going to be a meltdown, it was when IMO...
-
In 1929 before the stock market colapse nobody could have dreamed that this 'get rich quick' system of buying and selling stocks could ever collapse as it was based on actual companies, real industries of manufacture, real stocks, shares in companies like RCA, General motors, etc. The problem then was a consortium of bankers that banded together and artificially raised stock prices by initial buying and spreading prosparity rumors in the press then getting private investors to take the bait and go all in using the 10% down stock lending option at which point these greedy bastards would sell their original very cheap stocks at a fortune, this was the bubble and yes the greed caused the collapse.
After that depression there were new standards imposed which outlawed such blatant market manipulation stategies, but as time went on new schemes from greedy bankers caused future declines causing even more regulations like insider trading laws. So here we are at a new low with even more regulation taking place and a recovery needed just so that in some future we will again have another calamity which will require even more regulation.
The difference is back then the bankers and dirty bastard investers that caused the bust were wiped out!, like William Durant (founder of General motors and a huge investor stock manipulator) who at the time was the richest man in the world, lost everything, everything he died with a total value of $250.00...fair justice IMO.
Today the friggin banker swines and corrupt lobbyist friendly politicians have prospered through this collapse, they are still getting bonuses and untouched by the angry mobs, what makes this even worse is this collapse is based on ficticious money and bought debt not real industries and manufacturing companies that can be sold off or taken over.As always the innocents get screwed, the guy who goes to work, earns an honest buck. The person who bought a home using correct methods and honest practices (not 100% finances based on a 'Stated' income with interest only payments)who now find themselves upside down and unable to pay their variable rate loans for a home that is not worth half the price due to falling home prices based on market values. or the guy that cannot pay his staff for an honest weeks work because banks are too scared to honor his unfaultered line of credit, or even the guy who works for the company that cannot get the funds to buy raw materials to honor new orders which results in his job loss.
It's hard not to be pessimistic in their shoes, and what is basics for them?(rant over)
-
Just to throw some facts out there: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5110621/City-bankers-made-to-pay-for-financial-crisis.html
-
My heart bleeds for the poor little lambs....having a bonus slashed from £900,000 to a mere £500,000 on top of a paltry £100,000 basic package.
It's way past time that these bozos re-entered earth's orbit. I have no problem with entrepreneurs earning that type of money, but no salaried position should carry that kind of reward. Simply dealing with vast amounts of other people's money does not entitle you to a percentage of it. If that was the case, people would be queueing up to become security van drivers.
I do not buy into the "loss of talent" argument. Talent (to the banking fraternity) is measured by how much money you are capable of making. This is the fundamental flaw in the argument...bankers don't make money, they just move it around and facilitate other people making it...people that actually make real stuff that sells for real money. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors...and that's what caused the problem in the first place. -
Hi Pete,
@unknownuser said:
As always the innocents get screwed, the guy who goes to work, earns an honest buck. The person who bought a home using correct methods and honest practices (not 100% finances based on a 'Stated' income with interest only payments)who now find themselves upside down and unable to pay their variable rate loans for a home that is not worth half the price due to falling home prices based on market values. or the guy that cannot pay his staff for an honest weeks work because banks are too scared to honor his unfaultered line of credit, or even the guy who works for the company that cannot get the funds to buy raw materials to honor new orders which results in his job loss.
It's hard not to be pessimistic in their shoes, and what is basics for them?Its interesting that you as a "liberal" and me a "right wing nut" are in 100% complete agreement on this. I don't know quite what that means, but it is interesting.
People justify talk of living through the pain of these economic "bust and boom" cycles as if it is a natural part of mother nature. There is nothing natural about it. It is a system devised by man.
This system doesn't need supporting, it needs overhauling from top to bottom. Scrapped, if need be. If we can put a man on the moon I'm sure mankind can find a much better alternative to this corrupt financial scam.Nearly all the criminals who caused this are walking away unscathed with most of their ill-gotten gains intact. Why should millions of innocent people who lead honest, hard working lives be forced to pay the price for the mess created by these bastards?
There is nothing "natural" about this process.If the whole system is propped up by the Obamas and Browns of this world then this legacy is being passed on to your children, your grandchildren and their children. The Obamas and Browns don't have the trillions to spend.
They are just racking up more debt and misery for future generations.
But they won't be around to worry about that. And being part of the establishment keeps them pretty much insulated from their actions.Another sad aspect to all this is that these second rate vaudeville performers spout soundbites about "saving the world" and millions run out to vote for them because "they look good on TV and the wife wears pretty dresses".
Regards
Mr S -
@alan fraser said:
...bankers don't make money, they just move it around and facilitate other people making it...
Money is just a convenient way of exchanging services. Banks provide a service in the form of lending money and they get paid for it in the form of interest. No smoke and mirrors in sight.
-
Mr.S wrote:
@unknownuser said:
Its interesting that you as a "liberal" and me a "right wing nut" are in 100% complete agreement on this. I don't know quite what that means, but it is interesting.
It's true I am a bleeding heart liberal, but that is a social thing. Whats happening now is an injustice to the innocents and I am a champion to any underdog's cause, especially when I am one too as in this case.
I am not going to point a finger as to which side is more responsible for causing this mess as I feel both the left and the right are guilty as sin, even though I'd like to pin some blame on GWB as I dislike him with passion.
My concern here is a solution, do we let things sort themselves out without interference and hope for a rosy outcome or do we jump in and spend trillions to try fix this? I dunno, I cringe at the costs so far, actually I have become desensitized by the constant use of the word 'Billion', it's just a number now as I cannot imagine that sum of money not to mention the talking heads use it as they did the word 'terrorist' a few years ago until it lost it's impact.I'm not a liberal nor a conservative on this pressing issue...I'm concerned
-
@unknownuser said:
Money is just a convenient way of exchanging services. Banks provide a service in the form of lending money and they get paid for it in the form of interest. No smoke and mirrors in sight.
That is what banks should be.
Alan has pointed out that this is not how modern day banking makes its obsence profits. They do indeed employ smoke and mirrors to mask their activities. They try to convince us that their jobs are far too complicated for us peasants to understand. So we must not trouble our little minds about what they do. We should simply trust them to do whats best for us.
Yeah, right.===================================================
Hi Pete,
The liberal and right wing labels we each have are obviously very superficial and don't go anywhere near explaining the whole of our world outlooks.
Actually, I live with the "right wing nut" label just because I enjoy seeing politically correct liberals foam at the mouth. Its just a hobby of mine
Actually, I think I am more of a libertarian.
But there seems to be a "left-wing" and a "right-wing" strand to this political philosphy. Sometimes I find myself agreeing with the left-wing view, other times I agree with the right-wing view.I just know I hate the Neo-Cons vision of the world.
And I hate communist tyranny.
Go, figure.Regards
Mr S -
@mr s said:
They try to convince us that their jobs are far too complicated for us peasants to understand. So we must not trouble our little minds about what they do. We should simply trust them to do whats best for us.
Yeah, right.For the large part their jobs are pretty complicated, as essentially theyre trying to understand and manipulate the economy. Given the fact no one really understands how the economy works they've got quite a hard job on their hands.
Thats not to say we should just let them do what ever they want, banks need to be regulated as does pretty much any other industry.
-
I guess we are very alike and yet very unlike in many regards, I take an opposing view on many social issues as you, I live in the most conservative state in America yet I'm a liberal and also use leftist rhetoric at the pub to get a heated debate going.
I sometimes take party stands and defend them regardless if I'm passionate or concerned about either position just because I can relate closer to the overall liberal ideals of one certain party.
I argue for gun control even though I have not been a victim of gun violence yet in the US nor own or care to own one, I defend gay rights as a hetrosexual man, I champion the right to choose an abortion without being able to bear children, I oppose the indoctrination of religion in our school system even though as an athiest my kids go to church with their mother as I believe they have a right to choose but not forced to learn in our school system. These are just party politics that divide many people regardless if it effects them. We unfortunately live in a society that defines you by your vote.This recession/depression does not fall into politics as usual, this effects conservatives, democrats, independants, libertarians, marxists, communists or whatever your system is equally. What pisses me off is the conservatives are condeming every effort based on party politics without any alternative solutions, the democrats are endorsing everything for the same reasons and so this becomes the same old political game on capitol hill. We are hurting here guys, get your shit together quick and lets be Americans.
I bet if they could put politics aside for a moment, not worry about re-election for a while in order to find a solution that is universally agreed on without the need to add pork to ensure personal future votes we can get over this soon.I wish I had a view on the financial calamity, I just do not and I'd love to crticise the government for this ridiculous spending if I knew it was in vain, but I don't and they could be right, I like to let those banking bastards and insurance giants wither and implode on themselves if I believed it would not have a detremental effect on our situation, but I fear it will hurt us even more.
My brain does not comprehend the situation for all it is, and by what I'm seeing in washington and wall street nobody's brain does. -
Remus, banks have no business trying to manipulate the economy; that's the job of elected government and the Treasury. Banks are a service industry like any other. Their job ought to be to advance funds to businesses or individuals that need it, in order to facilitate growth, making a reasonable profit in the process. In that way, I suppose they do manipulate the economy.
However, modern banking practices have extended far beyond that into entirely speculative areas they have no right to be in, especially using other people's money.The job of bankers is as complicated as they care to make it...conjuring tricks are often very complicated. Making 'money' out of thin air is similarly complicated. There is a very good argument for banks getting back to their old, boring...and relatively simple...former selves.
-
With thanks to a local blogger who posted this.
There was an article in the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper. The Business Section asked readers for ideas on "How Would You Fix the Economy?"
This was one of the ideas:
Dear Mr.President,
Patriotic retirement:There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force; pay them $1 million a piece severance with stipulations:
- They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment fixed.
- They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto Industry fixed.
- They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage- Housing Crisis fixed.
All this and it's still cheaper than the "bailout".
Jeremy
-
Jeremy, that sounds like the best idea so far.
-
except it wouldnt work. $1 million isnt enough to last a person 25 years (and quite possibly longer.)
-
They could invest it in stocks
-
@solo said:
Jeremy, that sounds like the best idea so far.
right, it does.. and i'm sure there are many scenarios like this that would actually help the people and/or 'our' economy.. it just goes to show that the bankers/politicians do not have the people in their best interest..
they're caught up in some sort of game that i know nothing about yet am affected by the outcome or who's winning said game..[and really, it's like the ultimate game of Risk for these people.. real money, real power, affecting real lives... or maybe - even though it's the 'real' world, it's still fake money, fake power, affecting fake lives?]
-
@remus said:
except it wouldnt work. $1 million isnt enough to last a person 25 years (and quite possibly longer.)
The majority of state pensioners survive on a lot less than $40k per year (or probably even less than $25k if all recipients lived to 90). By the time you throw in the annual interest earned on a $1m lump sum over 40 years, the fact that many would be very close to paying off their 25 year mortgage anyway and that many would be married (maybe they would receive $1.5m?) I'd reckon as much as it sounds awfully like beer-glass-econonomics most people could actually get by on it.
Certainly couldn't do more harm than say Sir Fred Goodwin, ex boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland resigning from the bank and being rewarded with a +£700k pension per month (+$1m pcm). If anyone is any doubts or unaware of the extent of Sir Fred's skills at running a bank, then the figures speak for themselves: when he accepted the post as CEO around 10 years ago RBOS had a share price of around £4 (400 pence). The day he resigned they were 60-something pence. In the months since it has dropped as low as 10 pence. Happy retirement Fred!
-
I'll fess up now: i made a mistake when i worked out the yearly income from the $1 million. it is still a relatively small amount of money compared to what a 50 yr old could be earning in work. And i dont know about you but i'd quite like to not have to scrounge a living for the last 20-30 years of my life.
With regards to fred's pension: definitely not acceptable, but to get the facts straight, its £700k a year. And i wonder how much of that share price drop has been in the last year? i imagine quite a significant proportion.
Advertisement