I just turned age 65 and retired after forty-seven years with the same employer. I am one of the ten or so people born in the middle of WWII. My parents grew up during the Great Depression and were tempered by it, shunning the stock market and keeping money “safe all their lives - mostly in non interest bearing checking accounts. I was raised in the Protestant work ethic, work hard, save and avoid debt, live prudently (my wife occasionally mistakes that for cheap) and most of all be responsible. I believe I have cause to be mad as hell.
The word “bailout is a Pavlovian trigger for nausea at this point. From the largest corporations in the world, to local governments and irresponsible homeowners, everyone is in line for a bailout, or stimulus package or anything that takes the pressure off them for past actions. In the process schmucks like me who played by what we thought were the rules are getting hammered.
Strange people, those of us who take the concept of living within ones means seriously, today we find that may not be the right course because if you don’t take that path someone in Washington will surely “bail you out. Funny, I never assumed that I was too big to fail. We have lived in the same home for thirty-five years and while hard to believe, we don’t have a family room, media room or even granite counter tops. No, I am not poor, forty-seven years of working and saving and twenty years of a second job does get one into a comfortable status, so comfortable I can now look forward to paying three times as much for Medicare as the average person. The fact my savings are now considerably depleted notwithstanding in the years ahead I will likely pay substantial additional taxes to “bail out a government trying to pay for all the commitments made in 2008 and 2009.
What triggered my current state of angst? Well, listening to the auto executives plead for money while interspersing the words “electric and “green in their testimony and acting as if all their problems were caused by the Wall Street crisis. I wrote an article in 1978 quoting auto execs complaining about the expense of health care associated with each car and yet it took them nearly thirty years to make any meaningful changes in union contracts. My worry that one or more of my children will lose his job and have less of a chance at a secure future than I did because of a collection of actions taken by stupid, irresponsible people riles me as well.
What would make me happy? Well my dream is for a politician to get on TV and say, “Look people, this mess we are in has one root cause, and that is you. For years you have lived beyond your means, spent what you didn’t have, accumulated debt you could not afford and coveted a lot of stuff that contrary to popular view was not a necessity¦and, all the while you did not save.
Of course, we can’t blame just the average Joe for this mess, the so-called experts helped fuel these excesses. A New York Times article, (January 27, 2007) “Save Less and Still Retire with Enough, reports that a group of economists challenging the widely held theory that people are not saving enough today for their future retirement. According to the work of Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University and a few others, current planning models are too conservative and cause people to save too much for the future at the expense of living for today. These economists have not studied the baby boom generation but believe they too are secure in their future retirement. And to make matters worse these optimistic calculations take into account life insurance and real estate. How’s that working out for you professor?
There are millions of Americans like me who thought they were playing by the rules and now see their financial security in jeopardy because too many other people thought that their credit limit was part of their income or that home equity was an extra bank account. Many of those same people now live in hope that the government will come up with a plan to lower their interest rate, forgive part of their loan or otherwise change the terms of what they previously agreed to. A stimulus package may allow a down payment on a new home as a tax deduction or credit. Forgive my failing memory but I don’t recall any such “assistance when my wife and I were struggling to buy a first home.
My stock holdings, 401(k) and my grandchildren’s 529 plans are all decimated, but my cholesterol and blood pressure are up. We are headed in the wrong direction.
People like me, people who naively thought there were rules for prudent living and personal responsibility should have taken an around the world cruise with our home equity.
No doubt the experts and the politicians will tell you that they regret the actions being taken but there are no other alternatives, we simply must stimulate the economy, we must accumulate debt to have a better (albeit highly taxed) future. There is a great difference between prudent targeted spending and opening the cash valve for everything from new tennis courts to an upgraded community pool. Hey, come to think of it, I don’t have one of those either.
But not to worry, Igor Panarin, the Russian soothsayer knows where Americda is headed and by the middle of 2010, we will all live in different countries that were once part of the United States. And Sarah, better get to learning Russian and that Chinees population in San Franciso, it appears you can go home again. Hey, with California part of the China under the Panarin scenario, we won’t have to worry about cheap labor in China it will be in Malibu.
Made as Hell
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Made as Hell
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Made as Hell
I agree
it is a mess, a real mess.
it is a mess, a real mess.
Made as Hell
All through reading this, all I kept thinking of was the Biblical story of the Prodical Son.
One son, the "good son" stays at home, works hard and follows all the "rules".
The other son, " the bad son" demands his share of the inheritance and goes off and spends/loses it all.
In the depts of his fall "the bad son" realizes his fathers servants live better than he does and goes home to asks to be taken in to be a servant.
What happens when the father sees the son returning home............ he runs to meet him, declares a holiday, dresses the wayward son in great finery and kills the fatted calf.
Needless to say, the "good son" is a bit pi$$ed off. He's done everything right but has never been treated as his father is now treating the "bad son".
The father explains to the irked son that he has always been with him but the other son was lost and is now found................
I've always had alot of trouble with this parable as I always was the "good daughter". Then I had daughters of my own. One daughter went off into the world and needed alot of help on various occassions. Alot of money was spent on this "wayward" child, but finally, finally it all worked out well.
In our family, the parable proved true and though it was hard for a time on our one daughter who followed all the rules to see that she was not any futher ahead than the other, who seemingly got everything handed to her, time and love has shown that IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. You do what you need to do to help the one that needs the help.
Could it be the same with our economical situation? It isn't fair, but maybe it is the "right thing to do" for the good of all of us in the end?
The following paragraph from your original post: What would make me happy? Well my dream is for a politician to get on TV and say, “Look people, this mess we are in has one root cause, and that is you. For years you have lived beyond your means, spent what you didn’t have, accumulated debt you could not afford and coveted a lot of stuff that contrary to popular view was not a necessity¦and, all the while you did not save. was absolutely hitting the nail right on the head. It is how our grandparents and parents lived. It is not how the current generation lives and maybe won't change until we hit rock bottom again. History has taught us -- We don't seem to learn from our mistakes..................
One son, the "good son" stays at home, works hard and follows all the "rules".
The other son, " the bad son" demands his share of the inheritance and goes off and spends/loses it all.
In the depts of his fall "the bad son" realizes his fathers servants live better than he does and goes home to asks to be taken in to be a servant.
What happens when the father sees the son returning home............ he runs to meet him, declares a holiday, dresses the wayward son in great finery and kills the fatted calf.
Needless to say, the "good son" is a bit pi$$ed off. He's done everything right but has never been treated as his father is now treating the "bad son".
The father explains to the irked son that he has always been with him but the other son was lost and is now found................
I've always had alot of trouble with this parable as I always was the "good daughter". Then I had daughters of my own. One daughter went off into the world and needed alot of help on various occassions. Alot of money was spent on this "wayward" child, but finally, finally it all worked out well.
In our family, the parable proved true and though it was hard for a time on our one daughter who followed all the rules to see that she was not any futher ahead than the other, who seemingly got everything handed to her, time and love has shown that IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. You do what you need to do to help the one that needs the help.
Could it be the same with our economical situation? It isn't fair, but maybe it is the "right thing to do" for the good of all of us in the end?
The following paragraph from your original post: What would make me happy? Well my dream is for a politician to get on TV and say, “Look people, this mess we are in has one root cause, and that is you. For years you have lived beyond your means, spent what you didn’t have, accumulated debt you could not afford and coveted a lot of stuff that contrary to popular view was not a necessity¦and, all the while you did not save. was absolutely hitting the nail right on the head. It is how our grandparents and parents lived. It is not how the current generation lives and maybe won't change until we hit rock bottom again. History has taught us -- We don't seem to learn from our mistakes..................
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Made as Hell
Could it be the same with our economical situation? It isn't fair, but maybe it is the "right thing to do" for the good of all of us in the end?
There are some things that are the right thing to do, there are many others that are politicians and others promoting self interest and taking advantage of the situation with little regard to future consequences.
There are some things that are the right thing to do, there are many others that are politicians and others promoting self interest and taking advantage of the situation with little regard to future consequences.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Made as Hell
Jester;1095648 wrote: I hear ya but I want to throw in another factor-
The product advertisers- and then of course the product sellers-
They convince us through advertising that the one you have in your hand is never good enough, you need a new one. Or you need the cool brand- at the premeium price.
My parents taught me not to fall for the adscammers but to get what I 'need'.
I remember when Levi's 501's were the cheapest pair of pants on the market and my mother bought them in bulk for her boy's. By the time I hit my second year in the army Levi's 501's were being sold in dapartment stores at a premium price, they had become the rage. Now you cant touch an original pair of Levi's 501's for less that $40, thats not inflation, thats price gouging because americans have been convinced that it ain't cool unless it buttons up the fly. I can buy a pair of wranglers for $10 bucks at walmart. why would I waste $40 or more on Levi's.
(besides the fact that these big companies like Levi's give huge amounts of money to political causes I disagree with on a regular basis)
In short "designer jeans" is an oxymoron is it not or at least should be.
The product advertisers- and then of course the product sellers-
They convince us through advertising that the one you have in your hand is never good enough, you need a new one. Or you need the cool brand- at the premeium price.
My parents taught me not to fall for the adscammers but to get what I 'need'.
I remember when Levi's 501's were the cheapest pair of pants on the market and my mother bought them in bulk for her boy's. By the time I hit my second year in the army Levi's 501's were being sold in dapartment stores at a premium price, they had become the rage. Now you cant touch an original pair of Levi's 501's for less that $40, thats not inflation, thats price gouging because americans have been convinced that it ain't cool unless it buttons up the fly. I can buy a pair of wranglers for $10 bucks at walmart. why would I waste $40 or more on Levi's.
(besides the fact that these big companies like Levi's give huge amounts of money to political causes I disagree with on a regular basis)
In short "designer jeans" is an oxymoron is it not or at least should be.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Made as Hell
As someone who is 37 I think you have every right to be mad as hell Quinn. I have to say that the record of my own cynical, pampered and self-important generation is not very edifying.
The generation just previous to yours fought and died in their millions to secure the right of the peoples of North America and Europe to regain freedom from tyranny and the threat of tyranny. They did not do it so that people could buy lots of nice consumer products to keep themselves satiated with materialism.
We have been failed by political leaders on both sides of the atlantic for decades, from both sides of the political divide.
The right has said, "trust only in the jungle laws of the "free" market, society is an illusion, trust no one, (including your neighbour), and as a first rule: look after number one, because your worth it. Take what you can get, as quickly as possible, and build walls around you as high as possible to protect it, to hell with the losers".
The left has said, "trust everything in government, we can make it all better, the problems are all because of legislation, or not enough rights and entitlements for everyone, the government can eradicate all the problems including the human constants of poverty, ignorance, malice, and greed. And not just in our countries, but everywhere in the world, through giving everyone what they want, all the time".
Both were wrong.
One vision is cynical, callous, and dangerously amoral, the other is utopian, dangerously unrealistic and craven.
We need to rediscover, as people (individually and collectively), that our destiny lies in our own hands, and that we must work together; but also that we must take responsibility for ourselves and see the world, not as we would like it to be, but as it truly is, (and that includes our own follies and weaknesses).
We need a new type of politics, and new vision for how we can renew the Western World and the great potential within our civilization to provide free people with lives lived, not just for economic gain, but primarily for the betterment of us all. With the overarching aim of the freedom of the human spirit, honor and justice, both individually and collectively.
Not because its easy or convinient, it never is, but because in the final analysis its always been what is right to strive for, at all times among all peoples.
The generation just previous to yours fought and died in their millions to secure the right of the peoples of North America and Europe to regain freedom from tyranny and the threat of tyranny. They did not do it so that people could buy lots of nice consumer products to keep themselves satiated with materialism.
We have been failed by political leaders on both sides of the atlantic for decades, from both sides of the political divide.
The right has said, "trust only in the jungle laws of the "free" market, society is an illusion, trust no one, (including your neighbour), and as a first rule: look after number one, because your worth it. Take what you can get, as quickly as possible, and build walls around you as high as possible to protect it, to hell with the losers".
The left has said, "trust everything in government, we can make it all better, the problems are all because of legislation, or not enough rights and entitlements for everyone, the government can eradicate all the problems including the human constants of poverty, ignorance, malice, and greed. And not just in our countries, but everywhere in the world, through giving everyone what they want, all the time".
Both were wrong.
One vision is cynical, callous, and dangerously amoral, the other is utopian, dangerously unrealistic and craven.
We need to rediscover, as people (individually and collectively), that our destiny lies in our own hands, and that we must work together; but also that we must take responsibility for ourselves and see the world, not as we would like it to be, but as it truly is, (and that includes our own follies and weaknesses).
We need a new type of politics, and new vision for how we can renew the Western World and the great potential within our civilization to provide free people with lives lived, not just for economic gain, but primarily for the betterment of us all. With the overarching aim of the freedom of the human spirit, honor and justice, both individually and collectively.
Not because its easy or convinient, it never is, but because in the final analysis its always been what is right to strive for, at all times among all peoples.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
Every generation believe's they are wiser than the one that went before and the one that follows.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Made as Hell
oscar;1095750 wrote: Every generation believe's they are wiser than the one that went before and the one that follows.
Yes, and sometimes it takes a good kick up the hole for them to realize they were wrong.
Yes, and sometimes it takes a good kick up the hole for them to realize they were wrong.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
Galbally;1095689 wrote:
We have been failed by political leaders on both sides of the atlantic for decades from both sides of the political divide.
.
No, we have not been failed by political leaders although obviousley, they have the greater influence in how we live our live's.
We are in this mess purely down to greed. The greed of others affects the wisdom of the people who live within their means.
I would not say that my parents were fortunate. Fortune did not come into it. My father had his own business which he managed shrewdly and prudently. He did not recklessly borrow or invest un-wisely. We were all brought up with the idealogy that 'if you didn't have it... you didn't spend it'. Most of my family have their own business's now, one of my brothers, very successfull in what he does. (Except when Kauto Star came in at Kempton, but that's another story.)
The people i see having houses re-possessed and cars re-claimed are the one's who have spent to the max on credit. I have little sympathy for them.
We live in a greedy world where children walk the streets with more technology hanging from their ears than i've had in a decade.
Blame the politicians all you like, it's greed, greed, greed that has caused this melt down and nothing else.
I am not lucky to live a debt free life. I made my life like that taking the wisdom of my parents and elder brothers. I get half the rain forest come through my door of a week from companie's and banks offering me loans and credit. If i can resist, why can't others? GREED is the difference. I was brought up that your time was more valuable than possessions although we never went short of anything. If more people had my parents out-look on life, they would not have the bailiffs at the door now.
For those losing their jobs and blame the government. Look to your owner and the management who borrowed and invested badly.
We have been failed by political leaders on both sides of the atlantic for decades from both sides of the political divide.
.
No, we have not been failed by political leaders although obviousley, they have the greater influence in how we live our live's.
We are in this mess purely down to greed. The greed of others affects the wisdom of the people who live within their means.
I would not say that my parents were fortunate. Fortune did not come into it. My father had his own business which he managed shrewdly and prudently. He did not recklessly borrow or invest un-wisely. We were all brought up with the idealogy that 'if you didn't have it... you didn't spend it'. Most of my family have their own business's now, one of my brothers, very successfull in what he does. (Except when Kauto Star came in at Kempton, but that's another story.)
The people i see having houses re-possessed and cars re-claimed are the one's who have spent to the max on credit. I have little sympathy for them.
We live in a greedy world where children walk the streets with more technology hanging from their ears than i've had in a decade.
Blame the politicians all you like, it's greed, greed, greed that has caused this melt down and nothing else.
I am not lucky to live a debt free life. I made my life like that taking the wisdom of my parents and elder brothers. I get half the rain forest come through my door of a week from companie's and banks offering me loans and credit. If i can resist, why can't others? GREED is the difference. I was brought up that your time was more valuable than possessions although we never went short of anything. If more people had my parents out-look on life, they would not have the bailiffs at the door now.
For those losing their jobs and blame the government. Look to your owner and the management who borrowed and invested badly.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Made as Hell
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1095655 wrote: There are some things that are the right thing to do, there are many others that are politicians and others promoting self interest and taking advantage of the situation with little regard to future consequences.
True, but how do we know what is right. We can't all have the best and most up to date info..................
True, but how do we know what is right. We can't all have the best and most up to date info..................
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
Made as Hell
Jester;1095672 wrote: Tis a true statement for sure.
But its thousands of items 'we can't live without'.
Cell phones- 90% of us don't need them and would be better off without them IMHO.
Do you really need blue ray TV? or a 50Inch TV screen? Or surround sound? Want-desire, ok fine, but NEED to the point of going in debt over?
All these things kill me- I run across people who complain about not being able to get the McDonalds double meal deal anymore yet they are walking around with a 300 Iphone that they charged on VISA.
'With food and rament let us therewith be content'.
Some of the people who have these things have saved up for them and can afford to indulge in a 50-inch TV screen. It is difficult to judge others as to what they can and cannot afford.
At one point my brother drove a Stingray and shopped with food stamps. This was not because he mis-spend, it was because a skylight glass fell and hit him and he could not work for a time. He still has residual affects from the accident. I'm sure people who saw him pay with food stamps and then get in his car were very critical of him too.
But its thousands of items 'we can't live without'.
Cell phones- 90% of us don't need them and would be better off without them IMHO.
Do you really need blue ray TV? or a 50Inch TV screen? Or surround sound? Want-desire, ok fine, but NEED to the point of going in debt over?
All these things kill me- I run across people who complain about not being able to get the McDonalds double meal deal anymore yet they are walking around with a 300 Iphone that they charged on VISA.
'With food and rament let us therewith be content'.
Some of the people who have these things have saved up for them and can afford to indulge in a 50-inch TV screen. It is difficult to judge others as to what they can and cannot afford.
At one point my brother drove a Stingray and shopped with food stamps. This was not because he mis-spend, it was because a skylight glass fell and hit him and he could not work for a time. He still has residual affects from the accident. I'm sure people who saw him pay with food stamps and then get in his car were very critical of him too.
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
Kindle;1095799 wrote: Some of the people who have these things have saved up for them and can afford to indulge in a 50-inch TV screen. It is difficult to judge others as to what they can and cannot afford.
At one point my brother drove a Stingray and shopped with food stamps. This was not because he mis-spend, it was because a skylight glass fell and hit him and he could not work for a time. He still has residual affects from the accident. I'm sure people who saw him pay with food stamps and then get in his car were very critical of him too.
I am sorry about your brother and your right in that some people are not responsible for their lot in life. I think people like your brother suffer less than some are suffering now because he has been prudent.
We are very lucky here in that we have a benifit system that is the envy of the world. Unfortunately, this has bred a generation who see benifit as a life-style and not a safety net. The people who genuinly need benifit get lumped in with our 'scroungers'.
Just watch the up-roar in this country now it's likely that our government will announce that all students must pay their way through college and uni as you do in America instead of getting it for free.
We have all had it too good and there are vast amounts of people out there that believe the lifestyle of materialistic value's is a right not a privilage to be worked for.
At one point my brother drove a Stingray and shopped with food stamps. This was not because he mis-spend, it was because a skylight glass fell and hit him and he could not work for a time. He still has residual affects from the accident. I'm sure people who saw him pay with food stamps and then get in his car were very critical of him too.
I am sorry about your brother and your right in that some people are not responsible for their lot in life. I think people like your brother suffer less than some are suffering now because he has been prudent.
We are very lucky here in that we have a benifit system that is the envy of the world. Unfortunately, this has bred a generation who see benifit as a life-style and not a safety net. The people who genuinly need benifit get lumped in with our 'scroungers'.
Just watch the up-roar in this country now it's likely that our government will announce that all students must pay their way through college and uni as you do in America instead of getting it for free.
We have all had it too good and there are vast amounts of people out there that believe the lifestyle of materialistic value's is a right not a privilage to be worked for.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Made as Hell
oscar;1095766 wrote: No, we have not been failed by political leaders although obviousley, they have the greater influence in how we live our live's.
We are in this mess purely down to greed. The greed of others affects the wisdom of the people who live within their means.
I would not say that my parents were fortunate. Fortune did not come into it. My father had his own business which he managed shrewdly and prudently. He did not recklessly borrow or invest un-wisely. We were all brought up with the idealogy that 'if you didn't have it... you didn't spend it'. Most of my family have their own business's now, one of my brothers, very successfull in what he does. (Except when Kauto Star came in at Kempton, but that's another story.)
The people i see having houses re-possessed and cars re-claimed are the one's who have spent to the max on credit. I have little sympathy for them.
We live in a greedy world where children walk the streets with more technology hanging from their ears than i've had in a decade.
Blame the politicians all you like, it's greed, greed, greed that has caused this melt down and nothing else.
I am not lucky to live a debt free life. I made my life like that taking the wisdom of my parents and elder brothers. I get half the rain forest come through my door of a week from companie's and banks offering me loans and credit. If i can resist, why can't others? GREED is the difference. I was brought up that your time was more valuable than possessions although we never went short of anything. If more people had my parents out-look on life, they would not have the bailiffs at the door now.
For those losing their jobs and blame the government. Look to your owner and the management who borrowed and invested badly.
Yes Oscar I generally agree with you. I did say collectively and individually. Greed is at the root of it, greed and vanity. We are the economy, we are our nations, but we don't set the agenda or make the rules, we just live our lives according to the mode of the times, and we elect our leaders to lead, so yes, we are directly all responsible for what happens, however much we try to avoid that point.
My point is that leaders are supposed to lead, not just act like corporate CEOs, the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA is not elected just to run an economy for the sake of having a nice economy, not just pander to people's weaknesses because its easy and popular. This isn't just about Gordon Brown or Bush, or Thatcher or Schroder etc.
This isn't about recent politics, what has happened has been building for years. This is about the whole philosophy of consumerism that has been allowed to develop since World War II. It's natural that governments want to keep people happy, and avoid difficult issues as, by definition, thats difficult; but many people have questioned over the years the wisdom of allowing our sucess as socities and nations to be set by looking at yearly GDP growth figures without looking too hard at how that growth is being achieved or what its actually all for.
Politicians are not actually stupid and they realize that people who don't get bread today tend to go out on the street tomorrow, the concensus of recent decades seems to be, give the people bread and circuses, keep them docile for their own sake or else we will have social discontent.
Better that people get on with the business of getting on with making money, than get into actual politics on nasty issues like immigration, nationalism, race, or religion too much. Thats a natural political calculation, but we have become too successful at it, people were too happy to allow the merry go round to keep turning without looking at where the end point of all this might be. I think in modern times we have lost a sense of what all of this is for. Why do we bother? What is it we hope to pass on to our children? What lessons do we want to teach them, about life, us, and themselves?
For societies to survive they need to be based on more than just fulfilling people's material needs (though thats important). In any case, we moved long ago from fulfilling those needs, to gratifying people's "wants", without questioning whether allowing people to feel entitled to feel that because they "want" something is actually desirable at all.
What is a Nation? Do you feel proud to be British because your country is a parliamentary democracy ruled by law, with traditions of tolerance and individual freedom? Or are you proud that you can buy 18 different types of continental bread 24 hours a day in Tesco?
Cultural trends, economic policies, and political expediency have all combined to faciliate this greed within us, this sense of entitlement that because we live in certain countries we should enjoy inalienable access to whatever we want. That everything should be guided by the mantra of whether its convienient, popular, and profitable.
To me, modern Western society is cynical, knowing, self-mocking and utterly obsessed with material gain, despite the fact that many people are deeply troubled by that. Its a society that seems at once both self-worshipping and self-hating at the same time. We seem to have embraced all the worst aspects of what Westernism stands for, but mock all of the best things it stands for as being naive or outmoded.
Its hard to make general points about our modern socities without sounding pompous or moralistic, but I do really believe that the continual abandonment of the idea of civic society, individual freedom and responsibility, with collective social responsibility, and some set of absolute values around how we should behave (through the constant pandering to commercial agendas for "economic imperatives") has undermined a lot of what is supposed to hold society (and people's trust in society) together.
Politicians do actually have a large part to play in how a country charts its direction and perceives itself, if they don't have the ability, courage, or will to help set agenda's for the betterment of the nation then what point is there in having them in the first place?
Lets just get sophisticated software programs to "manage the macro-economic environment" and have beauty contests every 4 years instead of elections.
We are in this mess purely down to greed. The greed of others affects the wisdom of the people who live within their means.
I would not say that my parents were fortunate. Fortune did not come into it. My father had his own business which he managed shrewdly and prudently. He did not recklessly borrow or invest un-wisely. We were all brought up with the idealogy that 'if you didn't have it... you didn't spend it'. Most of my family have their own business's now, one of my brothers, very successfull in what he does. (Except when Kauto Star came in at Kempton, but that's another story.)
The people i see having houses re-possessed and cars re-claimed are the one's who have spent to the max on credit. I have little sympathy for them.
We live in a greedy world where children walk the streets with more technology hanging from their ears than i've had in a decade.
Blame the politicians all you like, it's greed, greed, greed that has caused this melt down and nothing else.
I am not lucky to live a debt free life. I made my life like that taking the wisdom of my parents and elder brothers. I get half the rain forest come through my door of a week from companie's and banks offering me loans and credit. If i can resist, why can't others? GREED is the difference. I was brought up that your time was more valuable than possessions although we never went short of anything. If more people had my parents out-look on life, they would not have the bailiffs at the door now.
For those losing their jobs and blame the government. Look to your owner and the management who borrowed and invested badly.
Yes Oscar I generally agree with you. I did say collectively and individually. Greed is at the root of it, greed and vanity. We are the economy, we are our nations, but we don't set the agenda or make the rules, we just live our lives according to the mode of the times, and we elect our leaders to lead, so yes, we are directly all responsible for what happens, however much we try to avoid that point.
My point is that leaders are supposed to lead, not just act like corporate CEOs, the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA is not elected just to run an economy for the sake of having a nice economy, not just pander to people's weaknesses because its easy and popular. This isn't just about Gordon Brown or Bush, or Thatcher or Schroder etc.
This isn't about recent politics, what has happened has been building for years. This is about the whole philosophy of consumerism that has been allowed to develop since World War II. It's natural that governments want to keep people happy, and avoid difficult issues as, by definition, thats difficult; but many people have questioned over the years the wisdom of allowing our sucess as socities and nations to be set by looking at yearly GDP growth figures without looking too hard at how that growth is being achieved or what its actually all for.
Politicians are not actually stupid and they realize that people who don't get bread today tend to go out on the street tomorrow, the concensus of recent decades seems to be, give the people bread and circuses, keep them docile for their own sake or else we will have social discontent.
Better that people get on with the business of getting on with making money, than get into actual politics on nasty issues like immigration, nationalism, race, or religion too much. Thats a natural political calculation, but we have become too successful at it, people were too happy to allow the merry go round to keep turning without looking at where the end point of all this might be. I think in modern times we have lost a sense of what all of this is for. Why do we bother? What is it we hope to pass on to our children? What lessons do we want to teach them, about life, us, and themselves?
For societies to survive they need to be based on more than just fulfilling people's material needs (though thats important). In any case, we moved long ago from fulfilling those needs, to gratifying people's "wants", without questioning whether allowing people to feel entitled to feel that because they "want" something is actually desirable at all.
What is a Nation? Do you feel proud to be British because your country is a parliamentary democracy ruled by law, with traditions of tolerance and individual freedom? Or are you proud that you can buy 18 different types of continental bread 24 hours a day in Tesco?
Cultural trends, economic policies, and political expediency have all combined to faciliate this greed within us, this sense of entitlement that because we live in certain countries we should enjoy inalienable access to whatever we want. That everything should be guided by the mantra of whether its convienient, popular, and profitable.
To me, modern Western society is cynical, knowing, self-mocking and utterly obsessed with material gain, despite the fact that many people are deeply troubled by that. Its a society that seems at once both self-worshipping and self-hating at the same time. We seem to have embraced all the worst aspects of what Westernism stands for, but mock all of the best things it stands for as being naive or outmoded.
Its hard to make general points about our modern socities without sounding pompous or moralistic, but I do really believe that the continual abandonment of the idea of civic society, individual freedom and responsibility, with collective social responsibility, and some set of absolute values around how we should behave (through the constant pandering to commercial agendas for "economic imperatives") has undermined a lot of what is supposed to hold society (and people's trust in society) together.
Politicians do actually have a large part to play in how a country charts its direction and perceives itself, if they don't have the ability, courage, or will to help set agenda's for the betterment of the nation then what point is there in having them in the first place?
Lets just get sophisticated software programs to "manage the macro-economic environment" and have beauty contests every 4 years instead of elections.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
Galbally;1095810 wrote: Yes Oscar I generally agree with you. I did say collectively and individually. Greed is at the root of it, greed and vanity. We are the economy, we are our nations, but we don't set the agenda or make the rules, we just live our lives according to the mode of the times, and we elect our leaders to lead, so yes, we are directly all responsible for what happens, however much we try to avoid that point.
My point is that leaders are supposed to lead, not just act like corporate CEOs, the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA is not elected just to run an economy for the sake of having a nice economy, not just pander to people's weaknesses because its easy and popular. This isn't just about Gordon Brown or Bush, or Thatcher or Schroder etc.
This isn't about recent politics, what has happened has been building for years. This is about the whole philosophy of consumerism that has been allowed to develop since World War II. It's natural that governments want to keep people happy, and avoid difficult issues as, by definition, thats difficult; but many people have questioned over the years the wisdom of allowing our sucess as socities and nations to be set by looking at yearly GDP growth figures without looking too hard at how that growth is being achieved or what its actually all for.
Politicians are not actually stupid and they realize that people who don't get bread today tend to go out on the street tomorrow, the concensus of recent decades seems to be, give the people bread and circuses, keep them docile for their own sake or else we will have social discontent.
Better that people get on with the business of getting on with making money, than get into actual politics on nasty issues like immigration, nationalism, race, or religion too much. Thats a natural political calculation, but we have become too successful at it, people were too happy to allow the merry go round to keep turning without looking at where the end point of all this might be. I think in modern times we have lost a sense of what all of this is for. Why do we bother? What is it we hope to pass on to our children? What lessons do we want to teach them, about life, us, and themselves?
For societies to survive they need to be based on more than just fulfilling people's material needs (though thats important). In any case, we moved long ago from fulfilling those needs, to gratifying people's "wants", without questioning whether allowing people to feel entitled to feel that because they "want" something is actually desirable at all.
What is a Nation? Do you feel proud to be British because your country is a parliamentary democracy ruled by law, with traditions of tolerance and individual freedom? Or are you proud that you can buy 18 different types of continental bread 24 hours a day in Tesco?
Cultural trends, economic policies, and political expediency have all combined to faciliate this greed within us, this sense of entitlement that because we live in certain countries we should enjoy inalienable access to whatever we want. That everything should be guided by the mantra of whether its convienient, popular, and profitable.
To me, modern Western society is cynical, knowing, self-mocking and utterly obsessed with material gain, despite the fact that many people are deeply troubled by that. Its a society that seems at once both self-worshipping and self-hating at the same time. We seem to have embraced all the worst aspects of what Westernism stands for, but mock all of the best things it stands for as being naive or outmoded.
Its hard to make general points about our modern socities without sounding pompous or moralistic, but I do really believe that the continual abandonment of the idea of civic society, individual freedom and responsibility, with collective social responsibility, and some set of absolute values around how we should behave (through the constant pandering to commercial agendas for "economic imperatives") has undermined a lot of what is supposed to hold society (and people's trust in society) together.
Politicians do actually have a large part to play in how a country charts its direction and perceives itself, if they don't have the ability, courage, or will to help set agenda's for the betterment of the nation then what point is there in having them in the first place?
Lets just get sophisticated software programs to "manage the macro-economic environment" and have beauty contests every 4 years instead of elections.
Gordon Brown said 'The age of irresponsibility is over'. It needs a strong government to weild the times of change and that change has to be making the reckless accountable.
I'd like to see a system where having 'popped' down to your local court, been declared bankrupt and handed your debts to the government and tax-payer, the reckless is accountable by carrying out 40 hours of un-paid work a week. However, as we all know, they'd be down the Dr's for a sick note or claim it is against their human rights.
We are slowly seeing this change in the thought process of society with announcements that students will pay and mothers on benifit forced back to work.
I can see this younger generation of ours as the generation of 'discontent', purely because they have had it too good and believe their benifit living parents have a right to that life-style.
My point is that leaders are supposed to lead, not just act like corporate CEOs, the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA is not elected just to run an economy for the sake of having a nice economy, not just pander to people's weaknesses because its easy and popular. This isn't just about Gordon Brown or Bush, or Thatcher or Schroder etc.
This isn't about recent politics, what has happened has been building for years. This is about the whole philosophy of consumerism that has been allowed to develop since World War II. It's natural that governments want to keep people happy, and avoid difficult issues as, by definition, thats difficult; but many people have questioned over the years the wisdom of allowing our sucess as socities and nations to be set by looking at yearly GDP growth figures without looking too hard at how that growth is being achieved or what its actually all for.
Politicians are not actually stupid and they realize that people who don't get bread today tend to go out on the street tomorrow, the concensus of recent decades seems to be, give the people bread and circuses, keep them docile for their own sake or else we will have social discontent.
Better that people get on with the business of getting on with making money, than get into actual politics on nasty issues like immigration, nationalism, race, or religion too much. Thats a natural political calculation, but we have become too successful at it, people were too happy to allow the merry go round to keep turning without looking at where the end point of all this might be. I think in modern times we have lost a sense of what all of this is for. Why do we bother? What is it we hope to pass on to our children? What lessons do we want to teach them, about life, us, and themselves?
For societies to survive they need to be based on more than just fulfilling people's material needs (though thats important). In any case, we moved long ago from fulfilling those needs, to gratifying people's "wants", without questioning whether allowing people to feel entitled to feel that because they "want" something is actually desirable at all.
What is a Nation? Do you feel proud to be British because your country is a parliamentary democracy ruled by law, with traditions of tolerance and individual freedom? Or are you proud that you can buy 18 different types of continental bread 24 hours a day in Tesco?
Cultural trends, economic policies, and political expediency have all combined to faciliate this greed within us, this sense of entitlement that because we live in certain countries we should enjoy inalienable access to whatever we want. That everything should be guided by the mantra of whether its convienient, popular, and profitable.
To me, modern Western society is cynical, knowing, self-mocking and utterly obsessed with material gain, despite the fact that many people are deeply troubled by that. Its a society that seems at once both self-worshipping and self-hating at the same time. We seem to have embraced all the worst aspects of what Westernism stands for, but mock all of the best things it stands for as being naive or outmoded.
Its hard to make general points about our modern socities without sounding pompous or moralistic, but I do really believe that the continual abandonment of the idea of civic society, individual freedom and responsibility, with collective social responsibility, and some set of absolute values around how we should behave (through the constant pandering to commercial agendas for "economic imperatives") has undermined a lot of what is supposed to hold society (and people's trust in society) together.
Politicians do actually have a large part to play in how a country charts its direction and perceives itself, if they don't have the ability, courage, or will to help set agenda's for the betterment of the nation then what point is there in having them in the first place?
Lets just get sophisticated software programs to "manage the macro-economic environment" and have beauty contests every 4 years instead of elections.
Gordon Brown said 'The age of irresponsibility is over'. It needs a strong government to weild the times of change and that change has to be making the reckless accountable.
I'd like to see a system where having 'popped' down to your local court, been declared bankrupt and handed your debts to the government and tax-payer, the reckless is accountable by carrying out 40 hours of un-paid work a week. However, as we all know, they'd be down the Dr's for a sick note or claim it is against their human rights.
We are slowly seeing this change in the thought process of society with announcements that students will pay and mothers on benifit forced back to work.
I can see this younger generation of ours as the generation of 'discontent', purely because they have had it too good and believe their benifit living parents have a right to that life-style.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Made as Hell
Kindle;1095799 wrote: Some of the people who have these things have saved up for them and can afford to indulge in a 50-inch TV screen. It is difficult to judge others as to what they can and cannot afford.
At one point my brother drove a Stingray and shopped with food stamps. This was not because he mis-spend, it was because a skylight glass fell and hit him and he could not work for a time. He still has residual affects from the accident. I'm sure people who saw him pay with food stamps and then get in his car were very critical of him too.
How did he afford to put gas in the Stingray?:rolleyes:
At one point my brother drove a Stingray and shopped with food stamps. This was not because he mis-spend, it was because a skylight glass fell and hit him and he could not work for a time. He still has residual affects from the accident. I'm sure people who saw him pay with food stamps and then get in his car were very critical of him too.
How did he afford to put gas in the Stingray?:rolleyes:
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
-
QUINNSCOMMENTARY
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 4:56 pm
Made as Hell
Galbally;1095810 wrote: Yes Oscar I generally agree with you. I did say collectively and individually. Greed is at the root of it, greed and vanity. We are the economy, we are our nations, but we don't set the agenda or make the rules, we just live our lives according to the mode of the times, and we elect our leaders to lead, so yes, we are directly all responsible for what happens, however much we try to avoid that point.
My point is that leaders are supposed to lead, not just act like corporate CEOs, the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA is not elected just to run an economy for the sake of having a nice economy, not just pander to people's weaknesses because its easy and popular. This isn't just about Gordon Brown or Bush, or Thatcher or Schroder etc.
This isn't about recent politics, what has happened has been building for years. This is about the whole philosophy of consumerism that has been allowed to develop since World War II. It's natural that governments want to keep people happy, and avoid difficult issues as, by definition, thats difficult; but many people have questioned over the years the wisdom of allowing our sucess as socities and nations to be set by looking at yearly GDP growth figures without looking too hard at how that growth is being achieved or what its actually all for.
Politicians are not actually stupid and they realize that people who don't get bread today tend to go out on the street tomorrow, the concensus of recent decades seems to be, give the people bread and circuses, keep them docile for their own sake or else we will have social discontent.
Better that people get on with the business of getting on with making money, than get into actual politics on nasty issues like immigration, nationalism, race, or religion too much. Thats a natural political calculation, but we have become too successful at it, people were too happy to allow the merry go round to keep turning without looking at where the end point of all this might be. I think in modern times we have lost a sense of what all of this is for. Why do we bother? What is it we hope to pass on to our children? What lessons do we want to teach them, about life, us, and themselves?
For societies to survive they need to be based on more than just fulfilling people's material needs (though thats important). In any case, we moved long ago from fulfilling those needs, to gratifying people's "wants", without questioning whether allowing people to feel entitled to feel that because they "want" something is actually desirable at all.
What is a Nation? Do you feel proud to be British because your country is a parliamentary democracy ruled by law, with traditions of tolerance and individual freedom? Or are you proud that you can buy 18 different types of continental bread 24 hours a day in Tesco?
Cultural trends, economic policies, and political expediency have all combined to faciliate this greed within us, this sense of entitlement that because we live in certain countries we should enjoy inalienable access to whatever we want. That everything should be guided by the mantra of whether its convienient, popular, and profitable.
To me, modern Western society is cynical, knowing, self-mocking and utterly obsessed with material gain, despite the fact that many people are deeply troubled by that. Its a society that seems at once both self-worshipping and self-hating at the same time. We seem to have embraced all the worst aspects of what Westernism stands for, but mock all of the best things it stands for as being naive or outmoded.
Its hard to make general points about our modern socities without sounding pompous or moralistic, but I do really believe that the continual abandonment of the idea of civic society, individual freedom and responsibility, with collective social responsibility, and some set of absolute values around how we should behave (through the constant pandering to commercial agendas for "economic imperatives") has undermined a lot of what is supposed to hold society (and people's trust in society) together.
Politicians do actually have a large part to play in how a country charts its direction and perceives itself, if they don't have the ability, courage, or will to help set agenda's for the betterment of the nation then what point is there in having them in the first place?
Lets just get sophisticated software programs to "manage the macro-economic environment" and have beauty contests every 4 years instead of elections.
I think you are making this too complicated. We are talking individual responsibility to a large extent and while individuals collectively make up a society, individuals do not have to follow the changes in that society blindly. The 1960s were wild and disruptive, the 80s brought us the age of self indulgence, the 90s the free spending never ending tech revolution and through it all people had the choice to stay with basic prudent fundamentals or go with the flow. Today is no different, politicians may feed and take advantage of our stupidity but they did not make anyone accumulate $10,000 on credit cards or buy a house they could not afford.
My point is that leaders are supposed to lead, not just act like corporate CEOs, the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of the USA is not elected just to run an economy for the sake of having a nice economy, not just pander to people's weaknesses because its easy and popular. This isn't just about Gordon Brown or Bush, or Thatcher or Schroder etc.
This isn't about recent politics, what has happened has been building for years. This is about the whole philosophy of consumerism that has been allowed to develop since World War II. It's natural that governments want to keep people happy, and avoid difficult issues as, by definition, thats difficult; but many people have questioned over the years the wisdom of allowing our sucess as socities and nations to be set by looking at yearly GDP growth figures without looking too hard at how that growth is being achieved or what its actually all for.
Politicians are not actually stupid and they realize that people who don't get bread today tend to go out on the street tomorrow, the concensus of recent decades seems to be, give the people bread and circuses, keep them docile for their own sake or else we will have social discontent.
Better that people get on with the business of getting on with making money, than get into actual politics on nasty issues like immigration, nationalism, race, or religion too much. Thats a natural political calculation, but we have become too successful at it, people were too happy to allow the merry go round to keep turning without looking at where the end point of all this might be. I think in modern times we have lost a sense of what all of this is for. Why do we bother? What is it we hope to pass on to our children? What lessons do we want to teach them, about life, us, and themselves?
For societies to survive they need to be based on more than just fulfilling people's material needs (though thats important). In any case, we moved long ago from fulfilling those needs, to gratifying people's "wants", without questioning whether allowing people to feel entitled to feel that because they "want" something is actually desirable at all.
What is a Nation? Do you feel proud to be British because your country is a parliamentary democracy ruled by law, with traditions of tolerance and individual freedom? Or are you proud that you can buy 18 different types of continental bread 24 hours a day in Tesco?
Cultural trends, economic policies, and political expediency have all combined to faciliate this greed within us, this sense of entitlement that because we live in certain countries we should enjoy inalienable access to whatever we want. That everything should be guided by the mantra of whether its convienient, popular, and profitable.
To me, modern Western society is cynical, knowing, self-mocking and utterly obsessed with material gain, despite the fact that many people are deeply troubled by that. Its a society that seems at once both self-worshipping and self-hating at the same time. We seem to have embraced all the worst aspects of what Westernism stands for, but mock all of the best things it stands for as being naive or outmoded.
Its hard to make general points about our modern socities without sounding pompous or moralistic, but I do really believe that the continual abandonment of the idea of civic society, individual freedom and responsibility, with collective social responsibility, and some set of absolute values around how we should behave (through the constant pandering to commercial agendas for "economic imperatives") has undermined a lot of what is supposed to hold society (and people's trust in society) together.
Politicians do actually have a large part to play in how a country charts its direction and perceives itself, if they don't have the ability, courage, or will to help set agenda's for the betterment of the nation then what point is there in having them in the first place?
Lets just get sophisticated software programs to "manage the macro-economic environment" and have beauty contests every 4 years instead of elections.
I think you are making this too complicated. We are talking individual responsibility to a large extent and while individuals collectively make up a society, individuals do not have to follow the changes in that society blindly. The 1960s were wild and disruptive, the 80s brought us the age of self indulgence, the 90s the free spending never ending tech revolution and through it all people had the choice to stay with basic prudent fundamentals or go with the flow. Today is no different, politicians may feed and take advantage of our stupidity but they did not make anyone accumulate $10,000 on credit cards or buy a house they could not afford.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody is not thinking" Gen. George Patton
Quinnscommentary
Observations on Life. Give it a try now and tell a friend or two or fifty.
Quinnscommentary Blog
Made as Hell
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1095975 wrote: How did he afford to put gas in the Stingray?:rolleyes:
Family. When one is in trouble, the Family gives a helping hand. This is how it was in my family. This is how my husband's family was. This is how our immediate family is now.
He could have been dead. We were all so relieved that he was able to walk away from this. He had done nothing wrong but go on a school field trip. He was just in the wrong spot................
Family. When one is in trouble, the Family gives a helping hand. This is how it was in my family. This is how my husband's family was. This is how our immediate family is now.
He could have been dead. We were all so relieved that he was able to walk away from this. He had done nothing wrong but go on a school field trip. He was just in the wrong spot................
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1095978 wrote: I think you are making this too complicated. We are talking individual responsibility to a large extent and while individuals collectively make up a society, individuals do not have to follow the changes in that society blindly. The 1960s were wild and disruptive, the 80s brought us the age of self indulgence, the 90s the free spending never ending tech revolution and through it all people had the choice to stay with basic prudent fundamentals or go with the flow. Today is no different, politicians may feed and take advantage of our stupidity but they did not make anyone accumulate $10,000 on credit cards or buy a house they could not afford.
This is exactly what i have been saying on other threads.
Greedy banks lend to greedy people... full stop.
Although i repeat myself, i have been saying that no-one put a gun to these people's heads and forced them to buy now, pay later in the thin prayer that the economy would sustain them long enough for them to repay it.
Of course, the polititians will tell people what they want to hear and lenders will loan to dumb arsse people that don't even check the interest rate before signing the deal.
Absolutely right Quinn when you say that it is 'individual responsibility'. Frankly, i don't care if my neighbour is having three of his four cars re-possessed or having to move out the five bedroomed house to move into a two bed-room house. Yes, the governments have urged people to buy houses way beyond their means but again, no-one forced them into it.
Another side of it, is the people whinging about lost jobs. I happen to think my PM has done the right thing with fiscal injection to get the economy going and he has invested more into the infrastructure of this country to create more jobs. I think that if he had not, the lost jobs would be worse. However, the people who complain they have lost their job have a cushy benifit system to fall back on. Gone are the days where if you were out of work, your family starved. We don't live in a society like that any-more. Your high flyer who has lost his job and is on benifit is now simply living on what most people manage to live on quite comfortably, so, hey, welcome to the real world. The people complaining of job losses should be looking to their bosses and management for answers. they are the ones who gambled, invested badly and borrowed excessively. Now it has crashed around their ears, such as the car giants, they are cap in hand to the government and the tax-payer for bail-out.
There is plenty of work out there and un-skilled work. Of course, these greedy people won't sweep floors, deliver leaflets in the cold or serve in McCDonalds will they?
This is exactly what i have been saying on other threads.
Greedy banks lend to greedy people... full stop.
Although i repeat myself, i have been saying that no-one put a gun to these people's heads and forced them to buy now, pay later in the thin prayer that the economy would sustain them long enough for them to repay it.
Of course, the polititians will tell people what they want to hear and lenders will loan to dumb arsse people that don't even check the interest rate before signing the deal.
Absolutely right Quinn when you say that it is 'individual responsibility'. Frankly, i don't care if my neighbour is having three of his four cars re-possessed or having to move out the five bedroomed house to move into a two bed-room house. Yes, the governments have urged people to buy houses way beyond their means but again, no-one forced them into it.
Another side of it, is the people whinging about lost jobs. I happen to think my PM has done the right thing with fiscal injection to get the economy going and he has invested more into the infrastructure of this country to create more jobs. I think that if he had not, the lost jobs would be worse. However, the people who complain they have lost their job have a cushy benifit system to fall back on. Gone are the days where if you were out of work, your family starved. We don't live in a society like that any-more. Your high flyer who has lost his job and is on benifit is now simply living on what most people manage to live on quite comfortably, so, hey, welcome to the real world. The people complaining of job losses should be looking to their bosses and management for answers. they are the ones who gambled, invested badly and borrowed excessively. Now it has crashed around their ears, such as the car giants, they are cap in hand to the government and the tax-payer for bail-out.
There is plenty of work out there and un-skilled work. Of course, these greedy people won't sweep floors, deliver leaflets in the cold or serve in McCDonalds will they?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Made as Hell
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;1095978 wrote: I think you are making this too complicated. We are talking individual responsibility to a large extent and while individuals collectively make up a society, individuals do not have to follow the changes in that society blindly. The 1960s were wild and disruptive, the 80s brought us the age of self indulgence, the 90s the free spending never ending tech revolution and through it all people had the choice to stay with basic prudent fundamentals or go with the flow. Today is no different, politicians may feed and take advantage of our stupidity but they did not make anyone accumulate $10,000 on credit cards or buy a house they could not afford.
No they didn't make anyone take out unsustainable loans, but they did allow the rules of lending to be relaxed to allow banks to do it, and also to allow these massive and veritable institutions to sell it to people as a good idea, with no possible problems, unopposed by any conterveiling argument.
Why? Because financial institutions wanted to be able to trade on human greed and stupidity unfettered by regulation, and backed up by the power of advertising on a population thats gets most of its values from TV, and no one in authority had the will to say "er, no you can't give credit cards to people who can't afford them, or mortgages, because if you do at some stage we will have to deal with the massive problems thats obviously going to cause when the music stops"
Thats why giving the national economic and social agenda over to rampant commericalism with no thought for what the long term consequences are is a bad idea, in general. People are greedy, and silly, and foolish, of course they are, which is why you have rules to mitigate these human constants, and laws to stop people exploiting them.
An analogy would be a company that invents a new alcohol-based set of candy bars for 12 year olds, with heroin in them, complete with a 890 million dollar TV and Internet campaign about how great these things are for kids and that how research into the effects if heroin on kids is inconclusive anyway, and the ads are great and have Hannah Montana in them, and kids should have the right to choose for themselves shouldn't they?
Well now, obviously that would never happen, but its the same principal (just taken to its logical extreme) that applies to things like cigarettes, and alco-pops for teenagers, and junk food for toddlers, and giving unemployed ex-convicts 125 percent mortgages, by ethically "self-regulating" companies. Wonder why they don't allow ordinary citizens to "self regulate" when it comes to filing their tax returns? This is why if you allow businesses to regulate society instead of the other way around you will end up in a big mess eventually, with a poor and unhappy society, but very rich and happy businesses.
No they didn't make anyone take out unsustainable loans, but they did allow the rules of lending to be relaxed to allow banks to do it, and also to allow these massive and veritable institutions to sell it to people as a good idea, with no possible problems, unopposed by any conterveiling argument.
Why? Because financial institutions wanted to be able to trade on human greed and stupidity unfettered by regulation, and backed up by the power of advertising on a population thats gets most of its values from TV, and no one in authority had the will to say "er, no you can't give credit cards to people who can't afford them, or mortgages, because if you do at some stage we will have to deal with the massive problems thats obviously going to cause when the music stops"
Thats why giving the national economic and social agenda over to rampant commericalism with no thought for what the long term consequences are is a bad idea, in general. People are greedy, and silly, and foolish, of course they are, which is why you have rules to mitigate these human constants, and laws to stop people exploiting them.
An analogy would be a company that invents a new alcohol-based set of candy bars for 12 year olds, with heroin in them, complete with a 890 million dollar TV and Internet campaign about how great these things are for kids and that how research into the effects if heroin on kids is inconclusive anyway, and the ads are great and have Hannah Montana in them, and kids should have the right to choose for themselves shouldn't they?
Well now, obviously that would never happen, but its the same principal (just taken to its logical extreme) that applies to things like cigarettes, and alco-pops for teenagers, and junk food for toddlers, and giving unemployed ex-convicts 125 percent mortgages, by ethically "self-regulating" companies. Wonder why they don't allow ordinary citizens to "self regulate" when it comes to filing their tax returns? This is why if you allow businesses to regulate society instead of the other way around you will end up in a big mess eventually, with a poor and unhappy society, but very rich and happy businesses.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
Galbally;1096061 wrote:
Well now, obviously that would never happen, but its the same principal (just taken to its logical extreme) that applies to things like cigarettes, and alco-pops for teenagers, and junk food for toddlers, and giving unemployed ex-convicts 125 percent mortgages, by ethically "self-regulating" companies. Wonder why they don't allow ordinary citizens to "self regulate" when it comes to filing their tax returns? This is why if you allow businesses to regulate society instead of the other way around you will end up in a big mess eventually, with a poor and unhappy society, but very rich and happy businesses.
There's that word again, 'giving'. No-one, including the banks and politicians 'gave' them anything. Yes, advertising is partly to blame but only because they know that if they flaunt their product on TV, stupid dumb arsse people who can't afford it, will buy it, because it's 'the must have' item.
There is temptation all around us and even without advertising, you would still have that basic urge, GREED. When you stop reckless people being greedy, you will solve the economic crisis.
Well now, obviously that would never happen, but its the same principal (just taken to its logical extreme) that applies to things like cigarettes, and alco-pops for teenagers, and junk food for toddlers, and giving unemployed ex-convicts 125 percent mortgages, by ethically "self-regulating" companies. Wonder why they don't allow ordinary citizens to "self regulate" when it comes to filing their tax returns? This is why if you allow businesses to regulate society instead of the other way around you will end up in a big mess eventually, with a poor and unhappy society, but very rich and happy businesses.
There's that word again, 'giving'. No-one, including the banks and politicians 'gave' them anything. Yes, advertising is partly to blame but only because they know that if they flaunt their product on TV, stupid dumb arsse people who can't afford it, will buy it, because it's 'the must have' item.
There is temptation all around us and even without advertising, you would still have that basic urge, GREED. When you stop reckless people being greedy, you will solve the economic crisis.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Made as Hell
oscar;1096068 wrote: There's that word again, 'giving'. No-one, including the banks and politicians 'gave' them anything. Yes, advertising is partly to blame but only because they know that if they flaunt their product on TV, stupid dumb arsse people who can't afford it, will buy it, because it's 'the must have' item.
There is temptation all around us and even without advertising, you would still have that basic urge, GREED. When you stop reckless people being greedy, you will solve the economic crisis.
Yes, and a good way to start is to stop allowing companies to make up the rules of what they can pretend is good for you. By bringing back in the idea that the mass media is not just a vehicle for selling ever more irrelevant consumer products. Stop dumbing down everything to pander to people's over-sated lazyness, stop dropping every social and academic standard to follow this ridiculous anti-achievement "inclusiveness" agenda.
Get rid of the idea just because people want to have 24 hour drinking followed by smashing up the local town doesn't mean they should be facilitated and cleaned up after by already over-stretched police and medical services, because the drinks industry wants more profits, and social liberals don't like the idea of telling people whay they should and shouldn't do.
That parents should told flat out to stop feeding their children food designed to make them walking bags of fat, indulging their every childish whim (put into their ads by the hours of TV they consume), become walking advertisements for various pornographic companies, drinks conglomerates, and sports wear companies, and officially promote the idea that perhaps there is more to human life than just being units of economic consumption sponsored by Nike, Addidas, and Man Utd.
In other words, we should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator consumer culture, stop facilitating the desire of marketing strategists to reduce life to a series of purchasing decisions, start re-imposing proscribed standards of social behaviour, and stop allowing people use the defence of "not knowing any better" or "I was drunk", and re-introduce the concept of self-discipline, self-reliance, and also self-sacrafice as occasionally being more important than how much money you make in a fiscal year or how many consumer products you have.
There is temptation all around us and even without advertising, you would still have that basic urge, GREED. When you stop reckless people being greedy, you will solve the economic crisis.
Yes, and a good way to start is to stop allowing companies to make up the rules of what they can pretend is good for you. By bringing back in the idea that the mass media is not just a vehicle for selling ever more irrelevant consumer products. Stop dumbing down everything to pander to people's over-sated lazyness, stop dropping every social and academic standard to follow this ridiculous anti-achievement "inclusiveness" agenda.
Get rid of the idea just because people want to have 24 hour drinking followed by smashing up the local town doesn't mean they should be facilitated and cleaned up after by already over-stretched police and medical services, because the drinks industry wants more profits, and social liberals don't like the idea of telling people whay they should and shouldn't do.
That parents should told flat out to stop feeding their children food designed to make them walking bags of fat, indulging their every childish whim (put into their ads by the hours of TV they consume), become walking advertisements for various pornographic companies, drinks conglomerates, and sports wear companies, and officially promote the idea that perhaps there is more to human life than just being units of economic consumption sponsored by Nike, Addidas, and Man Utd.
In other words, we should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator consumer culture, stop facilitating the desire of marketing strategists to reduce life to a series of purchasing decisions, start re-imposing proscribed standards of social behaviour, and stop allowing people use the defence of "not knowing any better" or "I was drunk", and re-introduce the concept of self-discipline, self-reliance, and also self-sacrafice as occasionally being more important than how much money you make in a fiscal year or how many consumer products you have.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Made as Hell
Its interesting, when they first incorporated the BBC, the concept was to develop a mass communication media to improve people's lives, to give them access to things like good music, fine art, interesting discussion, impartial news, and light entertainment.
Not because they wanted it, so much as it was seen as a social good, and something that would generally improve people and their lives.
What wise people.
It wouldn't happen now I can tell you. It would be seen as snobbish elitism.
Funny how the concept of trying to improve people's standards is seen as a negative and "oppressive" thing nowadays, while indulging their basest and most vulgar instincts is somehow seen as liberating for the human spirit.
Not because they wanted it, so much as it was seen as a social good, and something that would generally improve people and their lives.
What wise people.
It wouldn't happen now I can tell you. It would be seen as snobbish elitism.
Funny how the concept of trying to improve people's standards is seen as a negative and "oppressive" thing nowadays, while indulging their basest and most vulgar instincts is somehow seen as liberating for the human spirit.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Made as Hell
Galbally;1096132 wrote: Yes, and a good way to start is to stop allowing companies to make up the rules of what they can pretend is good for you. By bringing back in the idea that the mass media is not just a vehicle for selling ever more irrelevant consumer products. Stop dumbing down everything to pander to people's over-sated lazyness, stop dropping every social and academic standard to follow this ridiculous anti-achievement "inclusiveness" agenda.
Get rid of the idea just because people want to have 24 hour drinking followed by smashing up the local town doesn't mean they should be facilitated and cleaned up after by already over-stretched police and medical services, because the drinks industry wants more profits, and social liberals don't like the idea of telling people whay they should and shouldn't do.
That parents should told flat out to stop feeding their children food designed to make them walking bags of fat, indulging their every childish whim (put into their ads by the hours of TV they consume), become walking advertisements for various pornographic companies, drinks conglomerates, and sports wear companies, and officially promote the idea that perhaps there is more to human life than just being units of economic consumption sponsored by Nike, Addidas, and Man Utd.
In other words, we should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator consumer culture, stop facilitating the desire of marketing strategists to reduce life to a series of purchasing decisions, start re-imposing proscribed standards of social behaviour, and stop allowing people use the defence of "not knowing any better" or "I was drunk", and re-introduce the concept of self-discipline, self-reliance, and also self-sacrafice as occasionally being more important than how much money you make in a fiscal year or how many consumer products you have.
Very well said and i can only agree.
Advertising should be regulated to within an inch of their live's but would this take away people's basic right to 'choice'? If it does, then tough.
Our hospitals are stuffed full of over-weight people with obesity related illnessess.
Our towns are awash with old slappers drunk on the new 'must have alcopop' and as you say, the police and ambulance service pick up the mess.
You only have to look at excuses given in our courts by defence teams daily for the 'I wasn't to blame' culture.
We had a 'particular' problem in my village with vandalism by young kids. I heard every department lay the blame elsewhere except with themselves. It goes like this,
It's not the parents fault because house prices are so high that both parents have to go to work all hours.
Police Constables... It's not our fault, it's down to our superiors.
Police Sgts... It's not our fault.. it's the government's fault because we are under manned.
Police Inspector... It's not our fault.. it's the publics fault because they don't make enough calls for us to get a dispersal order on large gatherings.
Chief Superintendant... It's not our fault, it's the call centre's fault for putting too many shouts on our units in one night.
Call Centre... It's not our fault, it's the police departments fault for having all their cars tied up in the city centre.
Chief Constable... It's not our fault... It's the supermarkets fault for selling cut price booze.
All police... It's not our fault.. It's the magistrates fault for being too soft on them.
The Supermarkets... It's not our fault, it's the parents fault for allowing them to have the money to buy the booze.
I need not go on. :-5:-5
Get rid of the idea just because people want to have 24 hour drinking followed by smashing up the local town doesn't mean they should be facilitated and cleaned up after by already over-stretched police and medical services, because the drinks industry wants more profits, and social liberals don't like the idea of telling people whay they should and shouldn't do.
That parents should told flat out to stop feeding their children food designed to make them walking bags of fat, indulging their every childish whim (put into their ads by the hours of TV they consume), become walking advertisements for various pornographic companies, drinks conglomerates, and sports wear companies, and officially promote the idea that perhaps there is more to human life than just being units of economic consumption sponsored by Nike, Addidas, and Man Utd.
In other words, we should stop pandering to the lowest common denominator consumer culture, stop facilitating the desire of marketing strategists to reduce life to a series of purchasing decisions, start re-imposing proscribed standards of social behaviour, and stop allowing people use the defence of "not knowing any better" or "I was drunk", and re-introduce the concept of self-discipline, self-reliance, and also self-sacrafice as occasionally being more important than how much money you make in a fiscal year or how many consumer products you have.
Very well said and i can only agree.
Advertising should be regulated to within an inch of their live's but would this take away people's basic right to 'choice'? If it does, then tough.
Our hospitals are stuffed full of over-weight people with obesity related illnessess.
Our towns are awash with old slappers drunk on the new 'must have alcopop' and as you say, the police and ambulance service pick up the mess.
You only have to look at excuses given in our courts by defence teams daily for the 'I wasn't to blame' culture.
We had a 'particular' problem in my village with vandalism by young kids. I heard every department lay the blame elsewhere except with themselves. It goes like this,
It's not the parents fault because house prices are so high that both parents have to go to work all hours.
Police Constables... It's not our fault, it's down to our superiors.
Police Sgts... It's not our fault.. it's the government's fault because we are under manned.
Police Inspector... It's not our fault.. it's the publics fault because they don't make enough calls for us to get a dispersal order on large gatherings.
Chief Superintendant... It's not our fault, it's the call centre's fault for putting too many shouts on our units in one night.
Call Centre... It's not our fault, it's the police departments fault for having all their cars tied up in the city centre.
Chief Constable... It's not our fault... It's the supermarkets fault for selling cut price booze.
All police... It's not our fault.. It's the magistrates fault for being too soft on them.
The Supermarkets... It's not our fault, it's the parents fault for allowing them to have the money to buy the booze.
I need not go on. :-5:-5
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon