Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Atlas Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:30 am

The cost of traveling - i.e. fuel, parking, congestion and ambiance, is beginning to have a very adverse effect on the way people now shop and seek their pleasure. Not just the high street shops but more recently the entertainment venues, pubs,clubs,cinemas,restaurants and all other places of interest and entertainment.
Collectively the aforementioned constitute a massive sector of the economy and all of which are seeing their livelihoods and those of their employees put at risk. In the past the 'changes' have been slow and more ably managed. But the constant rises in fuels and the country's race towards income from 'other' taxable sources (such as parking fees etc) has had the knock on effect of sending the whole thing into virtual free-fall. A recession of triple-dips hasn't helped nor the 'freezing' of the fuel hikes (but it helps). Shopping on-line may be the future. Home-entertainment may be the future but there is a cost to be paid -. Views please.

Guest Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:11 am

Dot dot, dash dash - finally figured out your bizarre punctuation, you are slipping into Morse code at the end of sentences Wink

To answer your question: Labour all but bankrupt the country. The Conservatives and Lib Dems are making a bad job of trying to sort the mess out. Fasten your seat belts, the ride is going to get a lot rougher yet.

cyfrifia Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:34 am

J wrote: Fasten your seat belts, the ride is going to get a lot rougher yet.

It's difficult to get that into some kind of focus, for a country that is supposed to be in financial collapse, things look superficially much the same, with big shiny cars whizzing round the motorways, plenty of visible affluence to be seen and a profusion of high-tech electronic gadgets. At the same time, food banks opening, and no employment prospects for a lot of people. Are we looking at the near collapse of European civilisation, or, just an economic 'squeeze'?

Atlas Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:39 am

NO.NO.J. Whoever told you that is misleading you. Consecutive governments from the late 1980's ALLOWED THE MESS TO FOSTER AND PROLIFERATE - no political party or persons were responsible other than they hadn't a clue as to how things were being done, how the system was operating and why so much tax revenue was being generated from the financial sector - only that it APPEARED to be working. It wasn't - it was an illusion created by clever men each backing up the 'never ending boom' for personal profits. Don't even attempt to go there (political). It was done by rich accountants and their backers - the banking fraternity. The only blame with 'governments' was possibly that they were naive and ignorant - although a few equally clever people tried to blow the whistle and were howled down and castigated. But they were right - only it was all too late the damage by then had already been done. It is unfair to blame whomsoever is in power now or the fact they can't make it right overnight. Nobody can. Which is the 'right' way to go to accomplish the fastest and less hurtful remedy is all a matter of 'economics' and who you believe has the quickest answer to the problems. Most on here know my views. I air them often enough.
cyfrifia - A little more than an economic 'squeeze' I'm afraid. Relatively speaking we haven't been in such a mess as this since the 1930's and as then as now we shall have a greater profusion of 'have-nots' as a result of the cut-backs whilst others will weather the storm without apparent hurt. There are always causalities. The trick is - not to be one of the former.

cyfrifia Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:49 am

Atlas wrote:
Relatively speaking we haven't been in such a mess as this since the 1930's

Maybe some regions will do better than others. Whether the northwest of England will feel the full impact of events, or do better than a lot of other places in Europe and the world is a question that matters to us.

Places with high population density look most vulnerable. The towns and cities of the north of England add up to a huge conurbation, that hasn't been properly funded for a long time, just more people packed into it.

From a UK government perspective, the northwest is either a latent powerhouse of economic growth, or a huge liability, something of a fork in the road coming up I think. Either the government will soon invest heavily in creating jobs here, or, they won't.

Prudence Tempered Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:11 pm

Atlas wrote:no political party or persons were responsible other than they hadn't a clue as to how things were being done

To basically describe the last Labour government in particular as unwitting dupes of the bankers is not only wrong but the reverse of the truth.

The Team Brown Balls knew exactly what they were doing in establishing a 'light touch' regulatory scheme and persuading the banks to lend huge sums of money to millions of people who would only be able to repay the cash if the artificial boom went on forever. They compounded this by spreading the lie that the cycle of boom and bust had been ended and so the crisis occurred not just when the banking system hit the buffers but because of the massive amount of personal debt that Labour had both encouraged and relied on. That was immoral verging on criminal.

Atlas Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:37 am

I couldn't disagree with you more Prudence Tempered. I can only assume either you haven't researched your history of the events since de-regulation (1990 or thereabouts) or you are a crusading politico wishing to clobber the opposition or score points for your side. Either way your 'slant' on the 'actual' events is totally and utterly at odds with the events. Because governments (which after all are only people) are in power, doesn't make them some sort of gods - all knowing, all seeing. Not one politician (publicly) came out during the years when the 'cash-in' was in full swing to voice their opposition. Not because they were afraid to rock the boat, it was because THEY HADN'T A CLUE HOW THE SYSTEM WAS WORKING. ASK 'GREENSPAN' - and he was in charge of the Fed.
As for Labour over-spends? Why not? When there doesn't seem to be an end to the avalanche of revenues pouring in year on year with no 'faltering' in sight. Imprudent certainly. Criminal - that's rubbish.

cyfrifia Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:45 am

If politicians "HADN'T A CLUE HOW THE SYSTEM WAS WORKING", they shouldn't have messed around with it so much, other people in the financial industries did have a clue how to take advantage.

Guest Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:59 am

Atlas, your patronising pseudo-authoritative babble doesn't wash with me Wink

Of course the politicians knew! I knew, and I am no rocket scientist.

When I was a young man starting out on my own I remembered what my parents had taught me, earn £1 and spend 99p and you are fine, earn £1 and spend £1..01 and you are in trouble. And, borrow money and you have to pay it back... with interest, so don't, save up instead. Buy only what you can afford.

The same applies to governments and when Brown was being lauded as the best chancellor ever and the man who ended boom and bust I was screaming from the rooftops it was all a charade and the reckoning would come one day - my only surprise was how long he got away with it.

Prudence Tempered Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:48 am

Atlas wrote:As for Labour over-spends? Why not? When there doesn't seem to be an end to the avalanche of revenues pouring in year on year

Which just proves that it's actually you that doesn't have a clue about what has happened and the reasons for it. Whether you want to paint Labour's role in it all as one of sheer incompetence or malice is your choice but please, please don't claim that they weren't warned or that people in other parties were just as short-sighted.

Gordon Brown managed to massively increase the structural deficit at a time when their artificially induced tax revenues were pouring in - the very time when they should have been reducing. This would have allowed them to spend that revenue on a reduced debt when the well started to run dry. This is what they are demanding should be done now in their latter day conversion to Keynesianism, ignoring the fact that they didn't do the first bit.

Then came Labour's truly shocking bit. They announced that they had eliminated 'boom and bust' which led people to think that the good times would go on forever and so they continued to rack up enormous personal debt courtesy of the banks that had been deregulated by Brown and Balls.

They were warned how it would end but chose to ignore it, as it seems did you.

cyfrifia Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:44 am

The general idea of, or at least what happened with, the Brown government was to import lots of people and to export lots of money. So, here we are with lots of people and not much money. I don't quite follow the logic why that's a good idea, must be something to do with politics?

Hinch Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:20 am

J wrote:When I was a young man starting out on my own I remembered what my parents had taught me, earn £1 and spend 99p and you are fine, earn £1 and spend £1..01 and you are in trouble. And, borrow money and you have to pay it back... with interest, so don't, save up instead. Buy only what you can afford.

Is your surname 'Micawber' by any chance?

Atlas Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:43 am

Prudence Tempered wrote:
Atlas wrote:As for Labour over-spends? Why not? When there doesn't seem to be an end to the avalanche of revenues pouring in year on year

Which just proves that it's actually you that doesn't have a clue about what has happened and the reasons for it. Whether you want to paint Labour's role in it all as one of sheer incompetence or malice is your choice but please, please don't claim that they weren't warned or that people in other parties were just as short-sighted.

Gordon Brown managed to massively increase the structural deficit at a time when their artificially induced tax revenues were pouring in - the very time when they should have been reducing. This would have allowed them to spend that revenue on a reduced debt when the well started to run dry. This is what they are demanding should be done now in their latter day conversion to Keynesianism, ignoring the fact that they didn't do the first bit.

Then came Labour's truly shocking bit. They announced that they had eliminated 'boom and bust' which led people to think that the good times would go on forever and so they continued to rack up enormous personal debt courtesy of the banks that had been deregulated by Brown and Balls.

They were warned how it would end but chose to ignore it, as it seems did you.

As for the last sentence. You obviously haven't read ANY of my previous posts on the same subject otherwise you wouldn't have come out with such a silly remark.

As for Brown and Balls - you need to go back somewhat and try Thatcher and Major who first brought in deregulations.

As for them being warned - even the Fed in the USA didn't know what was actually happening. Yes they were warned. As far back as 2004. But they put it down to panic-mongering and moved the people concerned sideways (as is the usual thing in such circumstances). Why you expect other people (as educated as they may be) to have such insight beggars belief. They are politicians - not gods. Many don't even have the common-sense that you have or a circumspect view on life. In some cases they don't even have a grasp on reality. As for making the subject political and blaming 'the other side' (whomsoever they may be) is not going to alter the present situation nor is it going to put things right. It went too far pear-shaped for anyone of any particular political persuasion to come up with a miraculous panacea. Vote for whosoever you want. Try the 'Moonies' if you can find one of their candidates. It matters not a fig your crusading to smack the 'other guy' and blow the 'new' trumpet for unless those now in power/government alter the banking structures back to what they were in the 1970's (with a few modern additions) the same thing could and will, in time, happen again. People are not to be trusted to have 'free-rein'. Regardless of their politics or religions or predilections.

Atlas Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:46 am

J wrote:Atlas, your patronising pseudo-authoritative babble doesn't wash with me

Of course the politicians knew! I knew, and I am no rocket scientist.

When I was a young man starting out on my own I remembered what my parents had taught me, earn £1 and spend 99p and you are fine, earn £1 and spend £1..01 and you are in trouble. And, borrow money and you have to pay it back... with interest, so don't, save up instead. Buy only what you can afford.

The same applies to governments and when Brown was being lauded as the best chancellor ever and the man who ended boom and bust I was screaming from the rooftops it was all a charade and the reckoning would come one day - my only surprise was how long he got away with it.

As above 'J' - you also have chosen to ignore my previous posts on the same subject.

Prudence Tempered Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:25 am

Atlas wrote:As for Brown and Balls - you need to go back somewhat and try Thatcher and Major who first brought in deregulations.

Quite right, but even more evidence that you haven't got to grips with Labour's implicit involvement in the economic crash.

Thatcher and Major did indeed deregulate the City far beyond what was proper and wise. Labour could have reversed this or left things alone while they got on with other things. They did neither. Instead Brown and Balls embarked on a love-bombing tur of the financial institutions to promise then even more deregulation if they got elected. This was a promise that they delivered in full and very quickly.

They were not conned into it by a conniving banking system, it was something they needed doing for their own ends - to float the British economy on an artificial sea of revenue from lending based on pumped up house prices and proceeds from an overinflated City.

Guest Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:38 am

Atlas wrote:
J wrote:Atlas, your patronising pseudo-authoritative babble doesn't wash with me

Of course the politicians knew! I knew, and I am no rocket scientist.

When I was a young man starting out on my own I remembered what my parents had taught me, earn £1 and spend 99p and you are fine, earn £1 and spend £1..01 and you are in trouble. And, borrow money and you have to pay it back... with interest, so don't, save up instead. Buy only what you can afford.

The same applies to governments and when Brown was being lauded as the best chancellor ever and the man who ended boom and bust I was screaming from the rooftops it was all a charade and the reckoning would come one day - my only surprise was how long he got away with it.

As above 'J' - you also have chosen to ignore my previous posts on the same subject.

Of course I have, Atlas, why wouldn't I given you were spouting nonsense?

Guest Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:41 am

Hinch wrote:
J wrote:When I was a young man starting out on my own I remembered what my parents had taught me, earn £1 and spend 99p and you are fine, earn £1 and spend £1..01 and you are in trouble. And, borrow money and you have to pay it back... with interest, so don't, save up instead. Buy only what you can afford.

Is your surname 'Micawber' by any chance?

No, but my parents espoused the Micawber Principle, and having followed it, it has served me well.

Atlas Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:22 am

Prudence Tempered wrote:
Atlas wrote:As for Brown and Balls - you need to go back somewhat and try Thatcher and Major who first brought in deregulations.

Quite right, but even more evidence that you haven't got to grips with Labour's implicit involvement in the economic crash.

Thatcher and Major did indeed deregulate the City far beyond what was proper and wise. Labour could have reversed this or left things alone while they got on with other things. They did neither. Instead Brown and Balls embarked on a love-bombing tur of the financial institutions to promise then even more deregulation if they got elected. This was a promise that they delivered in full and very quickly.

They were not conned into it by a conniving banking system, it was something they needed doing for their own ends - to float the British economy on an artificial sea of revenue from lending based on pumped up house prices and proceeds from an overinflated City.

I didn't say they were conned into anything. I said they didn't 'understand' the system and what 'others' were capable of doing with it. IF you research properly the reasons behind the financial collapse you will find that barely one percent of the politicians AND those operating within the financial institutions system KNEW how tenuous and dangerous the GREED had become and just how critical the global transactions were becoming. Read Greenspan - Google it -. Neither the Fed nor the regulators over here had a clue the extent of the trillions of dollars and transactions that were being waved through as 'secure lendings and borrowing'. And why? Because there were no proper controls and were there was those controls were totally inadequate. Billions were being made on commissions on insecure packaging of debts between banks and other institutions to the extent when the whistle finally blew the whole thing became unstable and unsustainable and - surprise, surprise, crashed. I repeat ALL politicians from Thatcher onwards regardless of party politics were in the dark. Should they have been. Yes. In my experience the 'real' clever people don't become politicians - they become bankers and entrepreneurs. So any babble about 'whose fault' and my 'gangs' better than yours doesn't wash with me. They are all as incompetent as one another.

My record on this subject goes back much further than either of your memberships to the forum. In fact many years. This subject (even before the crash) was discussed many times. Many people on the forum (inc RO) of my age and life experience took the same view as you and prudence - that something in the state of Denmark was rotten and that it couldn't go as it was - and we discussed the possible reasons behind 'constant continuing Boom'. It went against everything we had experienced and been taught. None of us believed Browns 'end of bust' rhetoric - BUT - again - no one was listening. We were kill-joys. Old people. What did we know. Does that explain things a bit better to you both.

Sponsored content

Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?

Re: Modern living and recessions poses - - ?