I have small mortgage to pay off. Low interest rates are therefore a good thing. However, the BoE didn't reduce rates for me or people like me. Rates are low because banksters and politicians made some very poor decisions on investment and sending jobs abroad. Much of this investment went bad. Most loans these days aren't really individual - they get parcelled into loan books. Over 20 years, banksters made loans on which they charged 9% over 25 years. Banks generally borrow themselves in short-term markets because this is cheaper. When the banks loaned out at 9% they were borrowing at 4%. Now they have these contracts on their books but can borrow at 0.5% This increased margin is how they are making some of their bad loans good. In the swings and roundabouts of meaning low interest rates are both good and bad for me at the same time. My savings make negative return because rates are low and inflation is higher than them. I'm also paying in other ways for the BoE to lend the banks money at these rates because productive business is stuck with them and can't pass on the savings to me when I buy because the banksters are covering their bad loans and mega-bonuses. This is the 'simples' version - in fact the banksters are also buying insurance on the bad loans from subsidiaries to reduce their risk. Banks reducing risks usually means palming it off on us' for the next bail out.
I'm waiting for Cameron and Osbourne to nationalise RBS, split it into good and bad and then sell the good one on the market (meaning mostly to banksters). That way I'll lose twice. First in the crony sale and second as a taxpayer stuck with the bad bank forever. The truth is we've been had and should collapse the banks to primitive banking (all I suspect all of us use them for anyway). The only questions left for me, as Lee says in another thread, concern managing the transition. I suspect the biggest part of this is for western countries to agree on production planning for full employment and wealth restriction that would motivate quality work and free politics from being bought and paid for. On 18 Nov, 20:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think your numbered points expand mine rather well rigsy. Some rich > fight and die, others sub or draft dodge. It would be interesting to > know how many. I'm pretty sure a draft would change vies in the UK > and US on the wars we are engaging in. On socialism I have to say > there were (strangely) some rather nice and quaint aspects of it > behind the Iron Curtain. Pretty much as usual the term has many > meanings. The Nazis were socialist - indeed Stalin thought they would > be the ones to really bring socialism to Germany. One only has to > think of Hitler, Stalin and Mao - all crackpots - to know a term like > socialism or communism is a weasel word. > I guess the reason for what we approve of in capitalism (a term > brimming with ferrets and weasels) concerns getting personal property > through wages in a decent job market with countervailing forces of > governments we can elect, employers and rule of law. My guess on > what's happened in the western model is we have moved from pluralism > to unitary in this respect. In the supply side economics that has > held sway (if not intellectual sway) employers-investors want high > rates of return, low wages and growth (with the contradiction that low > wages kill growth other than through debt). The 'taxes' taken by the > 'rich' are, of course, taxation without representation and this often > involves stealing actual taxes by offshore and transfer-pricing > dodges. > > I have no time for Obama and only in negative numbers for Romney. > It's much the same here - I only vote in order to write 'no suitable > candidates' on my ballot. The election ground in my view should be > between supply-siders (who have and will continue to bail out banks > hoping time will change everything back to normal) and an opposition > putting a new model forward to rid us of debt and move us into a new > system. The supply side model is bust because it promoted growth > through debt (an old tactic of usury) and now wants to pay down this > debt and still (er?) grow. This is only the start of what the > argument should be - but what we get are old homilies. > > The concentration of wealth into the hands of rich people is more or > less how 'socialism' operated in the dictatorship-personality-cult > economies. Much capitalism has not been competitive but to do with > establishing oligopolies and false scarcities through various scams > and secret compacts. When I played matchstick poker or bridge with my > elder brother, sister and Mum there was always a levelling so we could > play again. > > On 16 Nov, 20:24, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Japanese people finance their own debt that I do know or at least > > the majority of it.. > > > The economy model is what man created for himself .. the morality > > much of which is created by man and we have nothing much else.. > > everyone wants to point fingers at the other guy > > > The solution lies within spirituality but Neil you don't want anything > > to do with that and I don't blame you, have screwed that up also and > > severely if I might add. Result a few will make the crossing and > > realize nothing is of value only a few will ever learn to truly let go > > of self.. > > > If the world learned to do this you would see a different world. > > Allan > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What gets at me is that Japan's economy crashed 20 years ago and > > > hasn't recovered. The 'model economy' never was any such thing. Much > > > of the recommendation for our recovery has already failed in Japan. > > > We are neglecting a practical example in favour of old ideological > > > preference. They propped up their banks. > > > > I no more believe in capitalism or socialism than that a blue and > > > white striped rabbit created the universe, complete with fossil record > > > and memories in 4004 BC. What we need is a system that prevents bad > > > behaviour and encourages us to be decent. This is extremely difficult > > > because we can pretend. > > > I don't think moral trauma blackmail like hell is much of an option. > > > I suspect the way we force people into work may be a measure like this > > > blackmail. Most of us are stripped of any way to be really > > > independent and self-sufficient and 'forced' to work for the hive in > > > order to feed at the establishment zoo. > > > > Imagine 'The Fugitive' (TV series) trying to work his way through > > > America now. He'd be well-stuffed by no jobs long before he found out > > > the one-armed man didn't do it and it was his best mate. > > > > We have no analysis of how much work is wasted, unnecessary and how > > > little parasitic banking does for us. > > > > On 15 Nov, 23:23, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> USA capitalism has been quite generous with its blood and treasure- > > >> around the globe. > > > >> Socialism sounds like a fair/equal deal but we know what Orwell wrote > > >> about that, don't we? > > > >> Most of my thoughts about the rich come from a lifetime of observing > > >> and interacting with rich or upper middle class liberals although a > > >> few conservatives snuck in here and there. Liberalism can be a cloak/ > > >> mask for greed and selfishness. Most isms separate quickly into > > >> classes repeating what may be an incurable human flaw. > > > >> On Nov 14, 11:29 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Greedy capitalism is very self centered and therefore is spiritually > > >> > terminal to use your term. > > > >> > On the other hand socialism can easily lead to a spiritual awakening > > >> > and > > >> > lead to life both spiritually and physical. The problem; in socialism > > >> > is > > >> > those that want more than an honest share and take that at the expense > > >> > of > > >> > others, > > >> > Allan > > > >> > Matrix ** th3 beginning light > > >> > On Nov 15, 2012 3:35 AM, "rigsy03" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > Yes- the "rich" conjures a stereotype which can vary greatly. > > > >> > > 1. Yes they do if there is universal conscription unless there are > > >> > > loopholes (buying a sub in our Civil War, etc.). Some may be > > >> > > attracted > > >> > > to a military career. > > > >> > > 2. Many wealthy families started out with a high school education- > > >> > > night school- family run businesses, etc. Some may not enjoy the > > >> > > clique of wealth and social climbing. > > > >> > > 3. This is too vague. :-) > > > >> > > 4. To acquire wealth, most have worked long hours and have engaged in > > >> > > manual labor, as well. > > > >> > > 5. Some- maybe most- avoid the vulgarity of politics; others back > > >> > > candidates or a political philosophy; others may serve in the > > >> > > diplomatic corps, etc. Some run for office because they have a > > >> > > calling > > >> > > to do so. Motives matter. > > > >> > > 6. The rich do have an edge in being able to keep money apart from > > >> > > taxable income in various ways. Most would invest and expand if the > > >> > > policies are favorable. > > > >> > > 7. Americans promoted individualism and shucked off the aristocratic > > >> > > model. The USA government has become the greedy landlord. > > > >> > > 8. They are precisely the ones who can afford to take risks- have- > > >> > > do- > > >> > > and will (hopefully). Socialism is like cancer- terminal. > > > >> > > On Nov 14, 9:54 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > It would be interesting to know who the rich are. Orwell said > > >> > > > somewhere that propaganda reduced a word to one meaning. We tend > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > stereotype. I think this would be about what they do and don't do > > >> > > > rather than naming names. I'd take the following guesses: > > > >> > > > 1. They mostly don't fight in wars. > > >> > > > 2. They get a lot of education in networks not generally available > > >> > > > - > > >> > > > both in private schools and elite management of better state > > >> > > > provision. This tend to make education a means to foster lack of > > >> > > > social mobility and part of the continuation of privilege. > > >> > > > 3. A lot of them are to be found in finance and professions that > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > the most heavily "unionised" places of restrictive practice. > > >> > > > 4. You won't find them doing hard work (only for fools and horses). > > >> > > > 5. They are the politburo controlling what we call politics. > > >> > > > 6. Criminal money and tax dodging play a big role. > > >> > > > 7. They are linked to ancient landlord rents in modern form. > > >> > > > 8. They don't take risks, but leave the rest of us holding the > > >> > > > baby. > > > >> > > > On 14 Nov, 13:25, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > Funny. The modern concious self has gotten very talented at > > >> > > > > avoiding a > > >> > > > > conscience let alone going through a thorough examination, Roman > > >> > > > > Catholic style, but it's been a bonanza for shrinks and > > >> > > > > do-it-yourself > > >> > > > > writers and advisors to fill the vacuum. And the super rich, as > > >> > > > > Gabby > > >> > > > > points out, generally try to crack the upper crust- as a source > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > future monetary opportunities, as a justification, as a display, > > >> > > > > as a > > >> > > > > safety factor. Few realize money has become a product in and of > > >> > > > > itself- like a bonanza crop for a farmer and even fewer complain > > >> > > > > when > > >> > > > > then are making money (Madoff''s "investors", etc.) > > > >> > > > > On Nov 14, 2:28 am, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > That is true,, I think i misspelled as usual conscious,, you > > >> > > > > > know > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > thing that nags you when you are doing something wrong.. > > >> > > > > > Allan > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:11 AM, gabbydott > > >> > > > > > <[email protected]> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > It depends on what you understand by 'social conscious'. The > > >> > > > > > > super > > >> > > > > > > rich by necessity have to be 'social conscious' in order to > > >> > > > > > > be > > >> > > able to > > >> > > > > > > develop further. You don't need to have 'social conscious' > > ... > > read more » --
