Do you know who I am

Ec. Reported today. 3 million would work less hours for less pay. That's a lot of people who feel that they have more than enough income. A helluva lot.

this stuff about only "the few" having any prosperity doesn't stand up
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Pay day loans are not used by the vast majority of people
Click to expand...

i never said vast majority..but they are big enough to get mentioned in dispatches often enough on the news etc..telling me that they get plenty of use...why?..we're all well off aren't we?

Bright House shops?...how are they prospering?.why would anyone use them if they are well off.

what you actually mean Clive is..i'm all right and all me mates..i don't really know or care about anyone else

and there we go full circle back to what was bred into hungry for money 20 year olds in the thatcher 80's...how old were you in the 80's?;)

a bit tongue in cheek at end..sorry Clive..no offence meant
 
clivex said:
Ec. Reported today. 3 million would work less hours for less pay. That's a lot of people who feel that they have more than enough income. A helluva lot.

this stuff about only "the few" having any prosperity doesn't stand up
Click to expand...

no its not..its people working that many hours that they no longer care about the money any more..they would rather not die of exhaustion
 
Maruco said:
State intervention in the respect you mention was nothing to do with a Government wanting to nationalise, it was because of having to nationalise in a set of very unique circumstances. I don't have a poor memory. It's just completely irrelevant!
Click to expand...

I was hoping that someone else might have picked this up, but alas no

State intervention is/ was a complete anathema to free market libertarians like Hayek and embodied by the likes of Thatcher. It was a complete affront to their philosophy. They believed that all you needed was small government and light touch regulation, and that given these conditions capital growth and wealth creation would flow. It was therefore their world view of unadulterated captialism that died circa 2008. It crashed spectacularly and could only be rescued by good old fashioned state intervention and nationalisation. It ran to £1.7Tn. To describe this safety net as "completely irrelevant" is staggering. It's the single biggest intervention in history. I'd be inclined to ask you to sketch out what would have happened if Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Alliance & Leicester, HBOS, RBS and Lloyds had all been allowed to fail. Barclays wouldn't have lasted another week such was their exposure to Lloyds, and as one collapsed onto another the load bearing would have broken every single bank in the world very quickly due to the way it multiplies. Their share price was already under pressure when the government stepped in. As I recall we were turning on the radio every morning to hear that another three banks had collapsed every day (including my car insuruers in Belgium!)

It was about this time as I recall, that the free marketeers suddenly remembered that they'd been advocates of the mixed economy along and that nationalisation and state intervention weren't such bad things after all. If Socialism has collapsed (and you might of course argue just what the Chinese version of it is) then unregulated free market capitalism did as well, and proved it could only survive with government to back stop it. In other words, it wasn't any longer by definition what it claimed to be, and those people who'd advocated this as their model of choice had been proven catastrophically wrong.

I'd wouldn't necessarily call it unique either. Banks and the worlds financial structures have crashed before and required massive government stimuli. I for one believe it will happen again and frankly don't believe Basel3 will insulate us. Every time an intervention has ever been put in place, it was to prevent the same thing happening again, but inherent instability will more or less guarantee that happen again it will.
 
Back
Top