The true wealth of the people!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by young_guns
I was sitting in my kitchen this afternoon, reading the papers and munching on a succulent clementine satsuma and it occurred to me how privileged I am, and indeed wealthy, compared to someone sitting in their kitchen in 1949.
In 1949, for the average working family, eating a satsuma was a wondrous treat, perhaps only done once a year; working class families often gave their children as their Christmas present a piece of fruit. For your average working man, a satsuma was an expensive indulgence, it would cost as much perhaps as much as a few packets of cigarettes (for comparison, imagine it cost 15 pounds in today's money)
On the other hand, today I can pick up a whole bag of clementines for a couple of pounds. Indeed, I can easily purchase more clementines than I care to eat, and it a very low price. That my fellow TSRians is true wealth; or rather, it's a true increase in wealth.
Another example is when my Mum first moved from Australia to the UK as an adult in her early 20s (she was born here, then the family moved to Australia), she could usually afford to make one international long-distance call home a month. It was astoundingly expensive, the lines were often fuzzy (they were passed over communications satellites) and they had to be short and sweet. Now, I can call home to my Mum, or anyone, on Skype, with full view of one another, for nothing. I call that a true increase in wealth / living standard.
If an average working man of the 1940s were to peer into my life today, he would think in some ways I live the life of a millionaire of his day. In fact, I can do and enjoy many things a millionaire of his day could not (my access to general open-source information, for example, exceeds that of any man in 1949 in terms of speed of provision and volume). The average person today is healthier, freer, longer lived, better clothed, better housed, better educated and safer.
When you look at many aspects of our lives today, our society and political structure (social democratic capitalism; a free market consensually saddled by a safety net and regulatory oversight) has delivered astounding increases in the wealth. The material comforts of the average person today would suggest that the aims of the politicians of decades ago were, on the whole, successful; they created a remarkable society, much more comfortable, tolerant, peaceful and free than 'ere it was. I do believe that inequality and wealth gaps are important, but it does bear thinking about the absolute increases in the material wealth and comfort of the ordinary person.
I say this to attempt to give some perspective to the people who moan that all politicians are completely corrupt and incompetent, that everything is awful and everyone is part of a conspiracy. In actual fact, the society the politicians of the 50s, 60s and 70s promised us (as far as the conditions of the average man, or average family) has been fulfilled. The important thing now is to recognise what a remarkable and precious society we have created, and ensure we can both conserve what we have now and continue to evolve in the way that has brought us such prosperity, safety, comfort and freedom.
In 1949, for the average working family, eating a satsuma was a wondrous treat, perhaps only done once a year; working class families often gave their children as their Christmas present a piece of fruit. For your average working man, a satsuma was an expensive indulgence, it would cost as much perhaps as much as a few packets of cigarettes (for comparison, imagine it cost 15 pounds in today's money)
On the other hand, today I can pick up a whole bag of clementines for a couple of pounds. Indeed, I can easily purchase more clementines than I care to eat, and it a very low price. That my fellow TSRians is true wealth; or rather, it's a true increase in wealth.
Another example is when my Mum first moved from Australia to the UK as an adult in her early 20s (she was born here, then the family moved to Australia), she could usually afford to make one international long-distance call home a month. It was astoundingly expensive, the lines were often fuzzy (they were passed over communications satellites) and they had to be short and sweet. Now, I can call home to my Mum, or anyone, on Skype, with full view of one another, for nothing. I call that a true increase in wealth / living standard.
If an average working man of the 1940s were to peer into my life today, he would think in some ways I live the life of a millionaire of his day. In fact, I can do and enjoy many things a millionaire of his day could not (my access to general open-source information, for example, exceeds that of any man in 1949 in terms of speed of provision and volume). The average person today is healthier, freer, longer lived, better clothed, better housed, better educated and safer.
When you look at many aspects of our lives today, our society and political structure (social democratic capitalism; a free market consensually saddled by a safety net and regulatory oversight) has delivered astounding increases in the wealth. The material comforts of the average person today would suggest that the aims of the politicians of decades ago were, on the whole, successful; they created a remarkable society, much more comfortable, tolerant, peaceful and free than 'ere it was. I do believe that inequality and wealth gaps are important, but it does bear thinking about the absolute increases in the material wealth and comfort of the ordinary person.
I say this to attempt to give some perspective to the people who moan that all politicians are completely corrupt and incompetent, that everything is awful and everyone is part of a conspiracy. In actual fact, the society the politicians of the 50s, 60s and 70s promised us (as far as the conditions of the average man, or average family) has been fulfilled. The important thing now is to recognise what a remarkable and precious society we have created, and ensure we can both conserve what we have now and continue to evolve in the way that has brought us such prosperity, safety, comfort and freedom.
A breath of fresh air. People are far too negative about society and human progress as a whole.
Where we are today is amazing compared to where we were only a very short time ago, and the future looks even more promising.
Original post by Bornblue
Children in Africa and other poor areas being forced to work in horrendous condition for about 5p an hour. Companies like Apple, Gap, Nike etc massively exploiting child labour.
Destruction of forests in the Amazon,
Massive pollution, destroying our atmosphere.
Etc the list goes on.
Big companies being so powerful they control governments.
Etc etc.
Yes capitalism has done some good things. It has found new medicines (although susbsequently priced out the poorest who actually need it). and increased general standards of living but ONLY in the developed world.
You can support the good parts of capitalism whilst also calling out on the huge damage it's caused.
Destruction of forests in the Amazon,
Massive pollution, destroying our atmosphere.
Etc the list goes on.
Big companies being so powerful they control governments.
Etc etc.
Yes capitalism has done some good things. It has found new medicines (although susbsequently priced out the poorest who actually need it). and increased general standards of living but ONLY in the developed world.
You can support the good parts of capitalism whilst also calling out on the huge damage it's caused.
Children in Africa have seen
Massive increases in mortality rates.
China has improved and the wealth of its citiziens has increased dramaticAlly.
You do realise that 60 years ago the places you've mentioned has unimaginable poverty, disease and and hunger.
Are you one of these people that think pre industrial revolution UK as a nice place to live?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Children in Africa have seen
Massive increases in mortality rates.
Massive increases in mortality rates.
That proves my point. Mortality rate = number per thousand per year. You're saying there's been massive increases.
You do realise that 60 years ago the places you've mentioned has unimaginable poverty, disease and and hunger.
Are you one of these people that think pre industrial revolution UK as a nice place to live?
They still have unimaginable poverty, disease and hunger. Look at Ebola ffs.
What about destroying and polluting the atmosphere?
What about places such as Afghansitan and Iraq which became war zones in pursuit of oil?
There has been no huge increase in living standards in Africa
What about all the child labour which goes on in the poorest of countries by big firms?
Yes we see the benefits of capitalism. But we're the tip of the iceberg.
Other, less well off countries get all the drawbacks. We get richer, they stay poor.
But we don't care, because we can't see the effects it's having.
Original post by Bornblue
That proves my point. Mortality rate = number per thousand per year. You're saying there's been massive increases.
They still have unimaginable poverty, disease and hunger. Look at Ebola ffs.
What about destroying and polluting the atmosphere?
What about places such as Afghansitan and Iraq which became war zones in pursuit of oil?
There has been no huge increase in living standards in Africa
What about all the child labour which goes on in the poorest of countries by big firms?
Yes we see the benefits of capitalism. But we're the tip of the iceberg.
Other, less well off countries get all the drawbacks. We get richer, they stay poor.
But we don't care, because we can't see the effects it's having.
They still have unimaginable poverty, disease and hunger. Look at Ebola ffs.
What about destroying and polluting the atmosphere?
What about places such as Afghansitan and Iraq which became war zones in pursuit of oil?
There has been no huge increase in living standards in Africa
What about all the child labour which goes on in the poorest of countries by big firms?
Yes we see the benefits of capitalism. But we're the tip of the iceberg.
Other, less well off countries get all the drawbacks. We get richer, they stay poor.
But we don't care, because we can't see the effects it's having.
You're absolutely incorrect.
The last 30-40 years have seen the fastest reduction in poverty worldwide in human history. Indeed the UN millennium goal on poverty reduction was reached early. China alone lifted fully 600 million people out of poverty thanks to its market reforms. Think about that number and the associated humanity for a bit.
Africa has not gotten poorer or worse off, though it has not yet had the dramatic increases in living standards of the West and Asia. However, it is still better off: life expectancy in most African countries is over 10 years higher than 40 years ago. We now see countries such as Nigeria developing a solid middle class on the back of international trade and a vibrant free(ish) market economy.
Of course you can cherry pick the countries which are most dysfunctional (almost always due to political turmoil or restricted economies rather than 'too much evil capitalism'), and ignore all the rest of the data. For the unbiased, though, the facts really do speak for themselves. If you think of yourself as a humanitarian, you should be strongly pro-free-markets.
Original post by ClickItBack
You're absolutely incorrect.
The last 30-40 years have seen the fastest reduction in poverty worldwide in human history. Indeed the UN millennium goal on poverty reduction was reached early. China alone lifted fully 600 million people out of poverty thanks to its market reforms. Think about that number and the associated humanity for a bit.
Africa has not gotten poorer or worse off, though it has not yet had the dramatic increases in living standards of the West and Asia. However, it is still better off: life expectancy in most African countries is over 10 years higher than 40 years ago. We now see countries such as Nigeria developing a solid middle class on the back of international trade and a vibrant free(ish) market economy.
Of course you can cherry pick the countries which are most dysfunctional (almost always due to political turmoil or restricted economies rather than 'too much evil capitalism'), and ignore all the rest of the data. For the unbiased, though, the facts really do speak for themselves. If you think of yourself as a humanitarian, you should be strongly pro-free-markets.
The last 30-40 years have seen the fastest reduction in poverty worldwide in human history. Indeed the UN millennium goal on poverty reduction was reached early. China alone lifted fully 600 million people out of poverty thanks to its market reforms. Think about that number and the associated humanity for a bit.
Africa has not gotten poorer or worse off, though it has not yet had the dramatic increases in living standards of the West and Asia. However, it is still better off: life expectancy in most African countries is over 10 years higher than 40 years ago. We now see countries such as Nigeria developing a solid middle class on the back of international trade and a vibrant free(ish) market economy.
Of course you can cherry pick the countries which are most dysfunctional (almost always due to political turmoil or restricted economies rather than 'too much evil capitalism'), and ignore all the rest of the data. For the unbiased, though, the facts really do speak for themselves. If you think of yourself as a humanitarian, you should be strongly pro-free-markets.
So tell me, do we ignore the issues of exploitation of child labour and do we ignore the issue of global warming which is the single biggest threat to our planet?
Do we just sweep those under the rug? No matter how good capitalism is, if it leads to global warming and threatens our planet as a whole, the benefits will be massively outweighed.
Capitalism has massively increased inequality, not reduced it. We've all become so desensitized to what's happening. My self included. We just want our Iphone, we don't care that some little kid thousands of miles away has worked in slave like conditions and paid almost nothing for it.
We have become detached from the realities.
What about wars for oil?
Everyone knows we went into Iraq for the Oil. Millions dead.Just look at how much il companies benefited from the war. We support and prop up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia for their oil money. Is that okay? Is that really positive?
Countries in Africa are suffering because they're not viewed as economically viable and can't get a place in the trade market. Why would we trade with them?
Although capitalism finds new medicines, they are then patented and the poor countries can't afford them.
It's even within our own society. We have people who are living on the streets due to cuts and meanwhile we have the ultra wealthy paying no tax.
The bankers mess up, the poor pay for it and the bankers get bonuses = capitalism.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
So tell me, do we ignore the issues of exploitation of child labour and do we ignore the issue of global warming which is the single biggest threat to our planet?
Do we just sweep those under the rug? No matter how good capitalism is, if it leads to global warming and threatens our planet as a whole, the benefits will be massively outweighed.
Do we just sweep those under the rug? No matter how good capitalism is, if it leads to global warming and threatens our planet as a whole, the benefits will be massively outweighed.
No one is proposing ignoring those issues. You can have capitalist systems with regulations, you know.
Capitalism has massively increased inequality, not reduced it. We've all become so desensitized to what's happening. My self included. We just want our Iphone, we don't care that some little kid thousands of miles away has worked in slave like conditions and paid almost nothing for it.
We have become detached from the realities.
We have become detached from the realities.
Honestly, you're the one who's most detached from reality if you think that humanity as a whole suffers more after the last 40-50 years of global capitalism than before it.
What about wars for oil?
Everyone knows we went into Iraq for the Oil. Millions dead.Just look at how much il companies benefited from the war. We support and prop up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia for their oil money. Is that okay? Is that really positive?
Everyone knows we went into Iraq for the Oil. Millions dead.Just look at how much il companies benefited from the war. We support and prop up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia for their oil money. Is that okay? Is that really positive?
I disagree with the breaking of international laws. Again, I believe in properly regulated capitalism.
Countries in Africa are suffering because they're not viewed as economically viable and can't get a place in the trade market. Why would we trade with them?
Although capitalism finds new medicines, they are then patented and the poor countries can't afford them.
Although capitalism finds new medicines, they are then patented and the poor countries can't afford them.
The same reason we trade with every country: natural resources, human resources, and consumer base.
And capitalism also induces companies to develop generics which are a roaring success in developing nations. Not to mention capitalism funds that original drug research in the first place.
It's even within our own society. We have people who are living on the streets due to cuts and meanwhile we have the ultra wealthy paying no tax.
The bankers mess up, the poor pay for it and the bankers get bonuses = capitalism.
The bankers mess up, the poor pay for it and the bankers get bonuses = capitalism.
Zzzzz.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ClickItBack
No one is proposing ignoring those issues. You can have capitalist systems with regulations, you know.
Honestly, you're the one who's most detached from reality if you think that humanity as a whole suffers more after the last 40-50 years of global capitalism than before it.
I disagree with the breaking of international laws. Again, I believe in properly regulated capitalism.
The same reason we trade with every country: natural resources, human resources, and consumer base.
And capitalism also induces companies to develop generics which are a roaring success in developing nations. Not to mention capitalism funds that original drug research in the first place.
Zzzzz.
Honestly, you're the one who's most detached from reality if you think that humanity as a whole suffers more after the last 40-50 years of global capitalism than before it.
I disagree with the breaking of international laws. Again, I believe in properly regulated capitalism.
The same reason we trade with every country: natural resources, human resources, and consumer base.
And capitalism also induces companies to develop generics which are a roaring success in developing nations. Not to mention capitalism funds that original drug research in the first place.
Zzzzz.
You haven't actually responded to a single point I made.
So answer me these questions:
1.) Is it right that bankers cause the economy to crash and WE pay for it whilst THEY get huge bonuses?
2.) Is it right that capitalist motives push us to war, killing millions?
3.) Is it right that we support dictatorships like Dubai and Saudi Arabia because of their oil money?
4.) Is it right that some little kid in Africa gets treated like a slave (There is so much evidence and proof of this on a large scale) so you can have an Iphone?
5.) Is it right that the people who most need life saving drugs can't afford them because we value our wealth higher than their health?
Yes Capitalism does some good things. But you fail to recognise the huge drawbacks and especially global warming and exploitation of labour/
What's the point of it all if it's physically going to destroy our planet in the long run? Do we not care about future generations?
Capitalism has encouraged greed and selfishness on a mass scale.
You go on about places like India getting richer. No, a few tycoons are earning billions which massively distorts figures such as GDP, whilst the poor stay poor.
We don't care about all those who suffer, we don't care about the kids being exploited in Africa or about the fact people's homes are being destroyed and threatened by global warming because it's not happening to US. We just want our new computer and Xbox.
Maybe one day when it does start to effect us, we'll have a change of heart.
You do need a certain amount of capitalism, it's not all bad. But it needs to be very firmly and strongly regulated, something that just doesn't happen.
Original post by Bornblue
But it all comes back to the issue of wealth. Those who are born into wealth go to private schools, go to Oxbridge and then go onto lead the country or other high profile jobs.
But at the same time, you get those who are born into nothing, do well at school, go to Oxbridge and get a good job
That's not a meritocracy. It's a meritocracy exclusive only to those with a privileged background. There are plenty of good universities. Oxbridge more than anything carries a reputation, that's all.
How many people born into a poor family in a council house in a crappy estate in Salford for example, can be expected to climb the ladder, go to Oxbridge and then go onto lead the country?
Not many is the answer. And how can they possibly be expected to do so without a leg up?
How many people born into a poor family in a council house in a crappy estate in Salford for example, can be expected to climb the ladder, go to Oxbridge and then go onto lead the country?
Not many is the answer. And how can they possibly be expected to do so without a leg up?
Stop being so crass, you, to me, seem to be the one that says "rargh, Oxbridge is 20% students from private schools, but only 10% of the country go to private school, massive problem!!!" while ignoring the 80% who aren't. A lot of the advantage from well off backgrounds is motivation; a child from a family where the parents are well educated and have good jobs is far more likely to be motivated and pushed by their parents to do well and work hard, these also are the ones that can afford to be privately educated.
How as a country can we make it a real meritocracy, where irrelevant of ones class or background success really does depend on how hard you work?
We can't, there is no way that I can think of which would reasonably happen where it would. You can if you really want take away the ability to pay for further support, but there is little you could do to deal with the environmental impact.
I reiterate, my sixth form places third in the rankings of Oxbridge attendance, after only Westminster School and Eton who are waaaaaay more selective than we were, we're ahead of so many private schools, why? Because, just like Eton and Westminster, we took the best that county (and in fact region) had to offer, and gave them one of the best educations in the country, or at least if you take it by Ofstead reports, exam results, university attendance etc. As the principal said: "why pay for second best?"
other bit
I don't particularly think that this is the time or the place to be discussing this, nor can I bothered right now
Original post by Bornblue
You haven't actually responded to a single point I made.
So answer me these questions:
1.) Is it right that bankers cause the economy to crash and WE pay for it whilst THEY get huge bonuses?
2.) Is it right that capitalist motives push us to war, killing millions?
3.) Is it right that we support dictatorships like Dubai and Saudi Arabia because of their oil money?
4.) Is it right that some little kid in Africa gets treated like a slave (There is so much evidence and proof of this on a large scale) so you can have an Iphone?
5.) Is it right that the people who most need life saving drugs can't afford them because we value our wealth higher than their health?
Yes Capitalism does some good things. But you fail to recognise the huge drawbacks and especially global warming and exploitation of labour/
What's the point of it all if it's physically going to destroy our planet in the long run? Do we not care about future generations?
Capitalism has encouraged greed and selfishness on a mass scale.
You go on about places like India getting richer. No, a few tycoons are earning billions which massively distorts figures such as GDP, whilst the poor stay poor.
We don't care about all those who suffer, we don't care about the kids being exploited in Africa or about the fact people's homes are being destroyed and threatened by global warming because it's not happening to US. We just want our new computer and Xbox.
Maybe one day when it does start to effect us, we'll have a change of heart.
You do need a certain amount of capitalism, it's not all bad. But it needs to be very firmly and strongly regulated, something that just doesn't happen.
So answer me these questions:
1.) Is it right that bankers cause the economy to crash and WE pay for it whilst THEY get huge bonuses?
2.) Is it right that capitalist motives push us to war, killing millions?
3.) Is it right that we support dictatorships like Dubai and Saudi Arabia because of their oil money?
4.) Is it right that some little kid in Africa gets treated like a slave (There is so much evidence and proof of this on a large scale) so you can have an Iphone?
5.) Is it right that the people who most need life saving drugs can't afford them because we value our wealth higher than their health?
Yes Capitalism does some good things. But you fail to recognise the huge drawbacks and especially global warming and exploitation of labour/
What's the point of it all if it's physically going to destroy our planet in the long run? Do we not care about future generations?
Capitalism has encouraged greed and selfishness on a mass scale.
You go on about places like India getting richer. No, a few tycoons are earning billions which massively distorts figures such as GDP, whilst the poor stay poor.
We don't care about all those who suffer, we don't care about the kids being exploited in Africa or about the fact people's homes are being destroyed and threatened by global warming because it's not happening to US. We just want our new computer and Xbox.
Maybe one day when it does start to effect us, we'll have a change of heart.
You do need a certain amount of capitalism, it's not all bad. But it needs to be very firmly and strongly regulated, something that just doesn't happen.
There were several reasons why the economy crashed. Bankers were a tiny part of it. But then again, it was politicians that changed the laws to allow poor banking practices. One
Of the main reasons for the crash was a general realisation that public spending was too high.
But if you're so upset about the banking system next time you choose to receive benefits, use the nhs system etc, take a moral stand and don't use it because a good chunk of the finance for them comes from the banking system.
Capitalistism very rarely pushes us into war. War doesn't generate wealth. War destroys wealth.
The wealth of even the poorest in places like india and China has gone up. Sadly you're making it up if you think the poor haven't had their lives improved.
To quote milton Friedman. If you ever want to see whether or not capitalism or communism is best. Watch how people vote with their feet. I've not seen many people queuing up to move to Cuba.
You sound like a cliche from the 70s.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ClickItBack
A breath of fresh air. People are far too negative about society and human progress as a whole.
Where we are today is amazing compared to where we were only a very short time ago, and the future looks even more promising.
Where we are today is amazing compared to where we were only a very short time ago, and the future looks even more promising.
50% of the world lives in poverty and you want to praise human progress...
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Quady
That wasn't really the point. The poster suggested I was a dumb capitalist slave in a way that suggested they weren't.
So I wanted to know how they weren't.
Seems they are too, which makes pointing out that I am a mute point.
So I wanted to know how they weren't.
Seems they are too, which makes pointing out that I am a mute point.
You're defending the system by referring to the cheapest mortgages ever or some bs.
I don't know what to call someone who advocates for a system which ultimately ****s you up.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Quady
Well a moe to 7% bank rate (not seen this side of the millenium) would hurt. It'd take my mortgage repayments to about 30% pay. I wouldn't feel better off, just normal.
What high volume interventions is the BoE upto?
What high volume interventions is the BoE upto?
QE
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by saayagain
Ok well as long as you are willing to change and won't turn into a so called middle class person that puts the upper class onto a pedestal. There's hope for you yet Neo. lol
Mortgages are inefficient resource allocation. You get a mortgage on a house that someone else had a mortgage on. Noone benefits apart from the person giving you the mortgage.
Rent in the current situation is linked to mortgage payments since landlords have bought the house they are renting with a mortgage. That's why there is no different between rent costs and mortgage costs. This is partly due to the lack of social housing, the right to buy bs and the house flippers and self made real estate moguls profiting from homes.
If the cost of renting was a quarter of the cost of a mortgage payment, would you get a mortgage? No. Provided your rights as a tenant are strengthened and adhered to.
Since the market is omnipotent in this system, people are susceptible to high costs of housing.
Also, the price of the house you are buying is determined by speculation. If you get a 50 year 3% mortgage on a £250k home you only benefit if the price of the home after the 50 years is more than the total you have paid for it (around 450k). Since it is a ponzi scheme those who bought houses when the right to buy scheme was initially introduced will benefit the most. Those who bought houses later on i.e now are susceptible to speculative figures which do not correlate to their wages, especially when compared to the Thatcher era private property bs.
Maybe I was wrong to label you as a capitalist...
Mortgages are inefficient resource allocation. You get a mortgage on a house that someone else had a mortgage on. Noone benefits apart from the person giving you the mortgage.
Rent in the current situation is linked to mortgage payments since landlords have bought the house they are renting with a mortgage. That's why there is no different between rent costs and mortgage costs. This is partly due to the lack of social housing, the right to buy bs and the house flippers and self made real estate moguls profiting from homes.
If the cost of renting was a quarter of the cost of a mortgage payment, would you get a mortgage? No. Provided your rights as a tenant are strengthened and adhered to.
Since the market is omnipotent in this system, people are susceptible to high costs of housing.
Also, the price of the house you are buying is determined by speculation. If you get a 50 year 3% mortgage on a £250k home you only benefit if the price of the home after the 50 years is more than the total you have paid for it (around 450k). Since it is a ponzi scheme those who bought houses when the right to buy scheme was initially introduced will benefit the most. Those who bought houses later on i.e now are susceptible to speculative figures which do not correlate to their wages, especially when compared to the Thatcher era private property bs.
Maybe I was wrong to label you as a capitalist...
I disagree that rent is linked to interest rates.... rent only ever increases as far as I can tell. It seems far more linked to the change in wages of the people who want to live in that area.
Also a significant number of rented properties are owned outright by the landlord. I've not got stats for let properties, but 40% of owner occupied homes are owned outright. Personally at least two of my four landlords were outright owners.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE5WdFpNSmMydl9QTDhTdFRtTXQ0WUE&hl=en_US#gid=0
If you got that place, you would only win (in money terms) if you spend would've spent more on the rent over the period than you did the house. ie over the 50 years if you'd spent less than £450k in rent you'd have been better off renting. Given rent in 40-50 years is likely to have trebled, its difficult to see how you wouldn't be better off.
People who bought before Right to Buy, (say in the 60s) have benefited more...
Anyone who buys a house looking for a capital return based on the asset price increasing is daft.
You seem to suggest during Thatcher there wasn't house price speculation
One of my landlords who owned outright had negative equity in the early 90s with it due to exactly that.
Original post by Jkruger1
QE
The BoE hasn't done QE for years now...
BoJ are the only central bank doing QE...
Original post by saayagain
You're defending the system by referring to the cheapest mortgages ever or some bs.
I don't know what to call someone who advocates for a system which ultimately ****s you up.
I don't know what to call someone who advocates for a system which ultimately ****s you up.
How is that defending it - its just true...
I didn't say it made capitalism good....
If anything its a sign of its failure right now, surely?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Quady
The BoE hasn't done QE for years now...
BoJ are the only central bank doing QE...
BoJ are the only central bank doing QE...
I could be wrong but I think we are still doing it at about 300bn per year. We just haven't increased the amount.
The ECB has never done proper annual QE (just targeted interventions) and the Federal Reserve has completed tapering and stopped completely now.
BOE will probably raise rates rather than stop QE so long as we have a deficit.
Original post by Martyn*
That was then. This is now. If we take your view to its logical conclusion and apply it to action, someone eating a satsuma but who is homeless, for example, is richer than someone in the past not eating a satsuma but homeless all the same, and therefore, to action, everyone who is homeless and eating satsumas should be content with what they have. You can see how foolish your view now is for that homeless person.
Absolute increases in wealth and living standards do matter. Relative wealth considerations also matter, though not as much as the absolute imho
Even if one could say the wealth gap today is similar to what it was in medieval times (it's not, but let's say it was), it's still significant that the average person today doesn't have to worry about most of their children dying from preventable diseases, or seeing their wife die in childbirth, or be clothed in tatty clothes and not have access to reliable sources of heat and light.
Those things do matter. I would rather have those things I mentioned above available to the average person and a larger wealth gap, than a smaller gap and everyone living in medieval conditions
We might be richer today than before, but the rich are even richer and they've obtained their riches and have gotten the poor to work for it, and sometimes the workers have not been paid relative to what the rich have profited
I agree. That's why I'm a Fabian socialist. My point is that our standard of living is remarkable compared to similar kinds of people in the past. My point is, stop whining. Stop implying everything is a conspiracy and we're living in some kind of uniquely horrible period. In fact, we're living in a uniquely hospitable period
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
I could be wrong but I think we are still doing it at about 300bn per year. We just haven't increased the amount.
The ECB has never done proper annual QE (just targeted interventions) and the Federal Reserve has completed tapering and stopped completely now.
BOE will probably raise rates rather than stop QE so long as we have a deficit.
The ECB has never done proper annual QE (just targeted interventions) and the Federal Reserve has completed tapering and stopped completely now.
BOE will probably raise rates rather than stop QE so long as we have a deficit.
I believe it finished in 2012 but none of it has been unwound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#United_Kingdom
If we were doing £300bn a year the BoE would almost be out of gilts to buy...
Original post by Quady
How is that defending it - its just true...
I didn't say it made capitalism good....
If anything its a sign of its failure right now, surely?
I didn't say it made capitalism good....
If anything its a sign of its failure right now, surely?
It's always a failure...Socialism is inevitable
Original post by Quady
I disagree that rent is linked to interest rates.... rent only ever increases as far as I can tell. It seems far more linked to the change in wages of the people who want to live in that area.
Also a significant number of rented properties are owned outright by the landlord. I've not got stats for let properties, but 40% of owner occupied homes are owned outright. Personally at least two of my four landlords were outright owners.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE5WdFpNSmMydl9QTDhTdFRtTXQ0WUE&hl=en_US#gid=0
Also a significant number of rented properties are owned outright by the landlord. I've not got stats for let properties, but 40% of owner occupied homes are owned outright. Personally at least two of my four landlords were outright owners.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdE5WdFpNSmMydl9QTDhTdFRtTXQ0WUE&hl=en_US#gid=0
I didn't say interest rates. I said mortgage payments. If a landlord has mortgage payments of £1000 a month. They will charge £1000 a month for rent or possibly a bit more. I can't find statistics on the amount of homes that are privately rented by landlords that have a mortgage on the home. I think it's the majority. This means those landlords that have finished paying the mortgage on the homes they own can charge the same or a bit less than what the landlords with outstanding mortgage payments charge. This pushes up rent costs. This is why private landlords are reluctant to carry out vital repairs, take cash in hand and pack houses with more persons than there should be. They do not make profit per say. They just pay the mortgage off with your rent. This is obviously a ****ty deal for the tenant so why not get a mortgage. Makes sense in this dysfunctional system. That is why I despise mortgages.
People's wages do not deter landlords from charging what they need to break even. Normally, people's rent costs are not adjustable so they will probably skimp on other costs like food, electricity, travel, clothes, extra curricular activities etc.
Original post by Quady
If you got that place, you would only win (in money terms) if you spend would've spent more on the rent over the period than you did the house. ie over the 50 years if you'd spent less than £450k in rent you'd have been better off renting. Given rent in 40-50 years is likely to have trebled, its difficult to see how you wouldn't be better off.
Since rent is linked to mortgage payments, this system equates mortgages to renting. Please refer to my explanation above. Also, as I said before, house prices must go up in order for buying a home to make sense. Therefore mortgage payments increase and therefore cause rent costs to increase.
Original post by Quady
People who bought before Right to Buy, (say in the 60s) have benefited more...
Anyone who buys a house looking for a capital return based on the asset price increasing is daft.
You seem to suggest during Thatcher there wasn't house price speculation
One of my landlords who owned outright had negative equity in the early 90s with it due to exactly that.
Anyone who buys a house looking for a capital return based on the asset price increasing is daft.
You seem to suggest during Thatcher there wasn't house price speculation
One of my landlords who owned outright had negative equity in the early 90s with it due to exactly that.
Everyone buys a house based on the capital return. It's a savings vehicle as well as a home. Are you telling me that you would pay in total £450k for a house that will be worth £200k in the future? I don't think so. If you would then you're a zombie.
Na. What I meant with my Thatcher comment is when the right to buy scheme was implemented people bought cheap homes and made unrealized capital gains fairly quickly. Now there are less discounted homes to buy + speculation. This causes prices to be high and therefore mortgage payments to be high. This makes it difficult to benefit financial from purchasing a home since house prices cannot go higher unless more demand is creating which was the case in the subprime mortgage schemes in America. Poorer people were able to buy homes and keep the ponzi scheme going but they could not keep up with the payments and failed. Banks sold on the toxic assets and then loads of assets turned to **** but that is going into some other issues.
So in conclusion, the house buying system is based on speculation that effects everyone directly or indirectly. I would rather the government controlled all housing and charged rent based on total debt repayment, building insurance and a urban proximity multiplier. (This is what I have come up with).
Negative equity is inevitable, unfortunately. Home ownership in a capitalist system is a fantasy. It's created to benefit the banks that give you the mortgage at the detriment of you and I.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- English Language Paper 1 Question 5 exam help
- How to ACTUALLY get rich and build wealth
- Exeter vs Leeds
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- Can someone please mark this English Language Paper 1 Question 4
- Auditing/Accounting
- Can someone mark this Christmas Carol essay for me please?
- I am a millionaire at 24. AMA.
- why are asians (pakistanis) all about money
- University of Exeter REAL review: WARNING - POSH
- 40/40 in Paper 1 Question 5 English language
- FREE Grade 8 An Inspector calls essay here if anyone wants it :
- English lit - An Inspector Calls
- HSBC Degree Apprenticeships 2022 Applicants
- An Inspector Calls - Selfishness essay
- Economics 2023 macro
- HL choices
- Why are state educated people looked down on?
- Help choosing a college
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
