Doom & Gloom?
-
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.
-
RBS stock value 2000-present:
As you can see the value of RBS stock was actually relatively high until April'07, but it still took until April'08 for them to fall to the same level as '00.
-
Is that a note of cynicism i detect there
-
In any other business Fred Goodwin would be liable for committing a criminal act of fraud. It's a case for Trading Standards, The Royal Bank of Scotland got their customers to invest by marketing false promises that they couldn't deliver. If a small business did that they would be sued by the clients and closed down by Trading Standards.
But Fred works for a bank and he's a "sir", so calling him a thief and a shyster isn't politically correct. The government don't help small business with a few grand of debt, but a bank that's lost a few million is not a problem. We will all be paying for Fred for some time yet.
-
@remus said:
With regards to fred's pension: definitely not acceptable, but to get the facts straight, its £700k a year.
Oops, my mistake, got my months mixed up with my years (maybe that where Sir Fred's accounting went wrong too?)... he's struggling by on £58k per month.
-
@jackson said:
he's struggling by on £58k per month.
@remus said:
Is that a note of cynicism i detect there
Yep there's something about hearing that he'll be getting more per month for not doing the job which he was not able to do than most people will ever earn in a year (even if they do their jobs very well) that brings out the cynic in me!
-
Hi Guys,
I've stayed away from this thread so far, just didn't want to read / hear about more Doom & Gloom.
Now that I read the posts I found it quite positive and realistic in many ways. Even the 'Buy Off' idea, €1M for over 50s.
As we all know only too well the Building Industry has been devastated World wide and this is having a pretty depressing effect all round. However the Building Industry will be needed in the future so anyone that is unemployed should keep their hands in and learn new skills in ready for the day that things pick up again.
I'm wondering if SketchUcation could play a part in generating some employment to expert SketchUp and associated program users by way on On Line Training / Consultancy Work.
I'd like to bounce a few ideas off anyone that now finds they are low on work and willing to investigate the possibility of working through a 'SketchUcation Online Agency' whereby Online Training / Consultations could be booked, paid for and supplied via SketchUcation.
Rather then hog this thread I will start a new topic and see how it goes. Look out for 'SketchUcation Online Services Agency' http://www.sketchucation.com/forums/scf/viewtopic.php?f=179&t=18363&p=149171#p149171
Mike
Advertisement