Is the global economy on the verge of the biggest collapse ever?

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

So he did lose something, just worded differently.

If you want to consider it as such. Regardless it's a good lesson for people not to confuse short range trends for long term sustainability. The number of students who left school before the leaving to work in construction are case in point. I have zero empathy for them but would suggest the best course of action is to retrain / get educated.

Junkyard Tom

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm a big fan helicopter money, especially if it's landing on me

Precision guided money into financiers and speculators coffers hasn't worked. Helicopter money would most likely do a better job than the 'expert' financiers and speculators when it comes to mitigating the boom-and-bust business cycle that concentrates power in fewer and fewer hands.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So these thousands of wealthy conspirators...

You didn't read my post...(or worse, you need to look up the definition of 'conspiracy').

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So these thousands of wealthy conspirators all acting in their independently of each other for their own collective self interest are able to keep their neferious plots a secret? It's a good thing the wealthy are a collective or that would be impossible.

Wealthy people just have to all work in their economic interests individually to game the system. They don't need to meet up.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything. Everyone is personally responsible for where they want to end up in this world. I've seen second generation immigrants become Accountants, Doctors and CFAs while native Irish students who had far more oppertunites presented to them drank in college than moan when they end up unemployed.

An argument that is irrelant to whether the rich are getting richer relative to the poor. Or this thread and the Baltic index. But since we are here - Capitalism will allow some people to get to the middle class (subsidised by the state in education of course) and some tiny amount of poor will get rich. Much wealth is inherited.

Perhaps the economy will crash again, who knows, we can't do anything about that

So we can't do anything to regulate capital flows, over lending or corrupt practices. Nice to know.

but on an individual basis one of the best things we can do is instill a sense of personal responsibility in people for how their own lives have turned out. You can only help someone once you cut through the wall of excuses and deflection of blame.

What utter cant. Spoken like a free market fundamentalist. The reality at the moment is that no amount of working hard will buy people a house in London that's fit to live in, and that looks like the future for the next generation of workers in most capitalist societies. Good luck with the asperational cant when doctors are renters.

(But then doctors are on strike in the uk right now. Maybe they should have worked harder, and had some personal responsibility and they would have been paid more.)

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you want to consider it as such. Regardless it's a good lesson for people not to confuse short range trends for long term sustainability. The number of students who left school before the leaving to work in construction are case in point. I have zero empathy for them but would suggest the best course of action is to retrain / get educated.

And the problem was them not the boom time capitalist economy unregulated by the central bank or state?

Junkyard Tom

Lads I can sum up IWF's economic dogma in one sentence. 'Shut up and don't be challenging orthodoxy'.

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Wealthy people just have to all work in their economic interests individually to game the system. They don't need to meet up.

Yes and it's amazing how they are able to keep this all so quiet. It's a good thing they all have that collective mind or the information may be leaked out to the media who also all peddle the exact same ideology as all rich people.

An argument that is irrelant to whether the rich are getting richer relative to the poor. Or this thread and the Baltic index. But since we are here - Capitalism will allow some people to get to the middle class (subsidised by the state in education of course) and some tiny amount of poor will get rich. Much wealth is inherited.

Um, this thread is not about relative wealth, it's about the OP fearing another crash based on a dubious index.

Capitalism may not be perfectly socially mobile but the world will never be perfectly socially mobile. On the other hand the free market system has given us the most socially mobile society to have ever existed post agriculture and is working to improve mobility in countries like India, China and Bangladesh today.

So we can't do anything to regulate capital flows, over lending or corrupt practices. Nice to know.

I didn't say that. I said you can't stop the boom bust cycle. It's a fact of the modern financial environment.

What utter cant. Spoken like a free market fundamentalist. The reality at the moment is that no amount of working hard will buy people a house in London that's fit to live in, and that looks like the future for the next generation in most capitalist societies. Good luck with the asperational cant when doctors are renters.

(But then doctors are on strike in the uk right now. Maybe they should have worked harder, and had some personal responsibility and they would have been paid more.)

Hold up, I'll tell the Managing Director of the company I work for who has a house in London that Eugene on boards.ie says he doesn't actually have a house or if he does he must have inherited it.

Iwasfrozen

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Lads I can sum up IWF's economic dogma in one sentence. 'Shut up and don't be challenging orthodoxy'.

And Tom's would be "I want other people's money".

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

And the problem was them not the boom time capitalist economy unregulated by the central bank or state?

When a farmer's crop fails is it the fault of the weather or the farmer who failed to prepare?

Junkyard Tom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And Tom's would be "I want other people's money".

Be quiet. Money ain't got no owners, only spenders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtoM9x-Bfu8

Junkyard Tom

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Wealthy people just have to all work in their economic interests individually to game the system. They don't need to meet up.

I find the oft cited Father of Capitalism's ignored quotes quite intriguing.

All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons.

Adam Smith.

Iwasfrozen

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Be quiet. Money ain't got no owners, only spenders.

If that's genuinely your philosophy I wish you the best of luck with it.

Allyall

It was supposed to happen in October..

http://www.theforecaster-movie.com/en/the-story/

Eugene Norman

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes and it's amazing how they are able to keep this all so quiet. It's a good thing they all have that collective mind or the information may be leaked out to the media who also all peddle the exact same ideology as all rich people.

To debate you need to learn to read and understand what you are reading. I can't make it simpler so I can just repeat what I said: rich people don't have to meet in a room to act as a group they just all have to work on their individual self interest. Nor did I say anything about the media but it is interesting that you acknowledge that the media peddles the exact "same ideology as rich people". I agree. I have a theory on why that is I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Um, this thread is not about relative wealth, it's about the OP fearing another crash based on a dubious index.

Everything in your post was off topic but I said that first. Nevertheless here is where we are.
The index isn't that dubious btw, and if we did get back on topic we could discuss it.

Capitalism may not be perfectly socially mobile but the world will never be perfectly socially mobile. On the other hand the free market system has given us the most socially mobile society to have ever existed post agriculture and is working to improve mobility in countries like India, China and Bangladesh today.

No doubt it's better than feudalism but the major social mobility is behind us, given the reality of increasing wealth in the top 1%. and - to vaguely attempt to get back on topic - increasing boom and bust cycles concentrating even more wealth there. That will continue without redistribution measures.

I didn't say that. I said you can't stop the boom bust cycle. It's a fact of the modern financial environment.

The modern financial environment needs replacing then. And of course we can try to reduce booms and busts. The economic system is what we do, what we agree on, not something put there by God.

Hold up, I'll tell the Managing Director of the company I work for who has a house in London that Eugene on boards.ie says he doesn't actually have a house or if he does he must have inherited it.

Again. Learn to read. I said most workers, not all could work hard and expect to remain in the rental sector, thus demolishing your arguments about how hard work or diligence makes people rich.

And if your counter argument to housing being unaffordable to most workers in London - including Doctors - is that a managing director can scrape together enough schekels to buy a 2 up 2 down in Watford, well that's not really making your best point.

Junkyard Tom

Hard work and diligence is much more likely to make the 1% rich than the hard worker.

Iwasfrozen

Eugene Norman wrote: »

To debate you need to learn to read and understand what you are reading. I can't make it simpler so I can just repeat what I said: rich people don't have to meet in a room to act as a group they just all have to work on their individual self interest. Nor did I say anything about the media but it is interesting that you acknowledge that the media peddles the exact "same ideology as rich people". I agree. I have a theory on why that is I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

I've read what you said and my response was a response to it so I'll just repeat my response. "Yes and it's amazing how they are able to keep this all so quiet."

Oh I know you do. Lefties always complain about percieved bias in the media. Funny how the extreme fringes of both wings tend to see the mainstream media as extremist

No doubt it's better than feudalism but the major social mobility is behind us, given the reality of increasing wealth in the top 1%. and - to vaguely attempt to get back on topic - increasing boom and bust cycles concentrating even more wealth there. That will continue without redistribution measures.

Inequality in itself is not a bad thing. Social mobility is the metric to look out for and I haven't seen anything to suggest social mobility is decreasing.

Also, thinking in terms of percentage is a bad metric. Surely if given the choice an increase in the average person's real income is preferable if achieved at the expense a smaller amount of the total percentage of income?

The modern financial environment needs replacing then. And of course we can try to reduce booms and busts. The economic system is what we do, what we agree on, not something put there by God.

Replacing, or even changing the financial system is not within Ireland's power even if it did need reform.

Again. Learn to read. I said most workers, not all could work hard and expect to remain in the rental sector, thus demolishing your arguments about how hard work or diligence makes people rich.

And if your counter argument to housing being unaffordable to most workers in London - including Doctors - is that a managing director can scrape together enough schekels to buy a 2 up 2 down in Watford, well that's not really making your best point.

Please learn to read, if he can be a managing director anyone can. He's a chartered accountant and he isn't from a wealthy background.

Maximus Alexander

After Hours is a real barrel of laughs these days.

donvito99

The article linked is jibberish posing as poorly worded English.

desertcircus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Please learn to read, if he can be a managing director anyone can. He's a chartered accountant and he isn't from a wealthy background.

I just want to check something on this: are you arguing that housing isn't ruinously expensive in London for the vast majority of workers because it's at least theoretically possible for an individual employee to work hard, win successive promotions, demonstrate competence at every level, and get all the little breaks to go their way, and end up becoming MD of the company they work for?

Because that's not a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London have become impossibly expensive for the majority of wage earners. It's not even a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London are impossibly expensive for 30-year-old Sarah, who's already been promoted twice and is now earning 42k sterling a year (twice the median income for the UK) but can't afford to buy a property anywhere near her job and would need another two promotions up the ladder to have a chance. At the moment, she's in the top 20% of earners in the UK, but her chances of buying a decent place to live in London are effectively zero.

Iwasfrozen

desertcircus wrote: »

I just want to check something on this: are you arguing that housing isn't ruinously expensive in London for the vast majority of workers because it's at least theoretically possible for an individual employee to work hard, win successive promotions, demonstrate competence at every level, and get all the little breaks to go their way, and end up becoming MD of the company they work for?

Because that's not a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London have become impossibly expensive for the majority of wage earners. It's not even a counterpoint to the argument that homes in London are impossibly expensive for 30-year-old Sarah, who's already been promoted twice and is now earning 42k sterling a year (twice the median income for the UK) but can't afford to buy a property anywhere near her job and would need another two promotions up the ladder to have a chance. At the moment, she's in the top 20% of earners in the UK, but her chances of buying a decent place to live in London are effectively zero.

I'm not arguing homes in London aren't expensive. I'm pointing out to the other poster it is possible a person can buy a house there if they work hard to advance their career far enough.

In isolation expensive homes aren't a problem, people can live in house shares, flats, or commute.

KomradeBishop

Essentially, what you are doing is arguing against macro-scale/collective/top-down arguments - about the economy overall, or Londons economy overall, and the average persons ability to afford a living or house - and are using micro-scale/individual/bottom-up arguments against them.

They are incompatible - you can't solve macro-scale persistently high unemployment, or provide macro-scale affordability in the housing market, through micro-scale/individual efforts that are supposed to act from the bottom-up - but that's the great myth that gets peddled by free-market ideologists, as a red herring, as it's extremely useful for 'blaming the victim' i.e. individuals (e.g. for 'not working hard enough'), while distracting from the need for top-down macro-scale solutions (like getting more money flowing through the actual real economy, rather than just through finance markets - the latter of which leads to speculation like on house prices).


You are pointless to debate with, as you never cease from the same script, even after the points have been thoroughly debunked - and you even redefine words to suit your argument, when it goes completely against the dictionary definition - e.g. a 'conspiracy' is defined as a group of people reaching an agreement with one another, conspiring to a certain action - and you define multiple people working in their own self-interest, towards a certain action, without any agreement, as a 'conspiracy' - it is not.

This is the modus operandi of at least half a dozen or more free-market posters on Boards - to give the pretence of a debate, while engaging in what seems more like obstruction of debate.

desertcircus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm not arguing homes in London aren't expensive. I'm pointing out to the other poster it is possible a person can buy a house there if they work hard to advance their career far enough.

But that's utterly unrelated to the original point being made - that house prices in London are unaffordable for all but the wealthiest. "It's theoretically possible to do very well financially" is not a riposte to "houses in London are out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population".

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Essentially, what you are doing is arguing against macro-scale/collective/top-down arguments - about the economy overall, or Londons economy overall, and the average persons ability to afford a living or house - and are using micro-scale/individual/bottom-up arguments against them.

They are incompatible - you can't solve macro-scale persistently high unemployment, or provide macro-scale affordability in the housing market, through micro-scale/individual efforts that are supposed to act from the bottom-up - but that's the great myth that gets peddled by free-market ideologists, as a red herring, as it's extremely useful for 'blaming the victim' i.e. individuals (e.g. for 'not working hard enough'), while distracting from the need for top-down macro-scale solutions (like getting more money flowing through the actual real economy, rather than just through finance markets - the latter of which leads to speculation like on house prices).


You are pointless to debate with, as you never cease from the same script, even after the points have been thoroughly debunked - and you even redefine words to suit your argument, when it goes completely against the dictionary definition - e.g. a 'conspiracy' is defined as a group of people reaching an agreement with one another, conspiring to a certain action - and you define multiple people working in their own self-interest, towards a certain action, without any agreement, as a 'conspiracy' - it is not.

This is the modus operandi of at least half a dozen or more free-market posters on Boards - to give the pretence of a debate, while engaging in what seems more like obstruction of debate.

And you fail to take into consideration personal responsibility. For the employed person high unemployment is not a major problem bar expenditure in social welfare but high unemployment tends to apply downward pressure on that. High unemployment is a problem for the unemployed, both on a personal level and as a group and it's up to them to get retrained / reeducated in a more "in demand" market or travel elsewhere where there are new opportunities available.

Iwasfrozen

desertcircus wrote: »

But that's utterly unrelated to the original point being made - that house prices in London are unaffordable for all but the wealthiest. "It's theoretically possible to do very well financially" is not a riposte to "houses in London are out of the financial reach of the vast majority of the population".

OK. I accept property is very expensive in London but I don't see that as a problem in itself. Remove height restrictions and allow development on protected land and supply / demand will push prices down.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

OK. I accept property is very expensive in London but I don't see that as a problem in itself. Remove height restrictions and allow development on protected land and supply / demand will push prices down.

That's quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen to address the problem of housing prices in London, bar none.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

That's quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen to address the problem of housing prices in London, bar none.

Really? If that is the most stupid idea you've heard you must never have heard of rent controls.

Wibbs

karma_ wrote: »

That's quite literally the stupidest idea I've ever seen to address the problem of housing prices in London, bar none.

That's the Libertarian mind at work. IMH they're best described as value autistics. The price of everything… etc. They would literally pave paradise and put up a parking lot if their nose was in the trough of course and that they could buy their own private paradise enclave away from everyone else.

Wibbs

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Really? If that is the most stupid idea you've heard you must never have heard of rent controls.

See what I mean? Completely missing the point.

Iwasfrozen

Wibbs wrote: »

That's the Libertarian mind at work. IMH they're best described as value autistics. The price of everything… etc. They would literally pave paradise and put up a parking lot if their nose was in the trough of course and that they could buy their own private paradise enclave away from everyone else.

Leaving aside your dig at people with autism (?!) What would you do to fix housing in London since we're on the topic? It's easy to criticize.

Wibbs

In London? Build more local authority affordable housing(contrary to Libertarian thinking the private sector simply hasn't taken up the slack for decades. For good market reasons, more cheaper housing hits the bottom line and deflates the prices of existing housing). Tackle the government encouraged runaway price inflation of housing. Take measures to end the home owning meme.