Chronically sick nation determined to learn nothing

nearlynew

zappahey wrote: »

Arguably, it's real money but it's paid back with tomorrow's money, not money we have today.

In other words, buy now pay later.

When you borrow money you are bringing forward future consumption.
And the fruits of your future labour are what you pledge in return.

It can get so bad that all your current earnings are paying for yesterday's consumption with nothing left for today or tomorrow.
So you end up working just to pay your debts, leaving nothing extra.

This is why, at its most extreme, debt is akin to slavery.

treliac

nearlynew wrote: »

And the fruits of your future labour are what you pledge in return.

Precious few of those on our horizon.

CLAPTON

nearlynew wrote: »

In other words, buy now pay later.

When you borrow money you are bringing forward future consumption.
And the fruits of your future labour are what you pledge in return.

It can get so bad that all your current earnings are paying for yesterday's consumption with nothing left for today or tomorrow.
So you end up working just to pay your debts, leaving nothing extra.

This is why, at its most extreme, debt is akin to slavery.

indeed so

unless of course you are using debt to buy assets in which you are sacrificing todays income for benefit tomorrow

so you borrow to buy a house and benefit in the future (rent free living)

or borrow to invest in a business and reap the benefits tomorrow

or borrow to invest in yourself ..education or even travel and experience


slavery no... slavery is you telling me what I should or shouldn't do

nearlynew

I think you must have missed the "it can" in the 4th line of my post.

bo_drinker

nearlynew wrote: »

In other words, buy now pay later.

When you borrow money you are bringing forward future consumption.
And the fruits of your future labour are what you pledge in return.

It can get so bad that all your current earnings are paying for yesterday's consumption with nothing left for today or tomorrow.
So you end up working just to pay your debts, leaving nothing extra.

This is why, at its most extreme, debt is akin to slavery.

And there are a lot in this boat and it serves them right the brain dead tw4ts. Absolutely useless, no comprehension of saving or living within their means whatsoever, they need educating Too late for many though.

Graham_Devon

bo_drinker wrote: »

And there are a lot in this boat and it serves them right the brain dead tw4ts. Absolutely useless, no comprehension of saving or living within their means whatsoever, they need educating Too late for many though.

Too late? Best time for many. Can go bankrupt much easiner ow than at any other point in time in history.

You even get told its not your fault.

CLAPTON

nearlynew wrote: »

I think you must have missed the "it can" in the 4th line of my post.

so you're saying that although it's not actaully the case, in some extreme situations it might be so.

well of course... excess is always an exception... as in an excess of vitamin A is a poison (never eat a polar bear's liver) .... useful to know for polar explorers

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

or borrow to invest in a business and reap the benefits tomorrow

Though the people owning the business need to stake their own capital and not just the banks. The returns for taking risks can be very high and rewarding. Though now more people want the returns without taking a risk.

This country was built on great entreprenurs are there any new ones on the horizon?

econo_2

kennyboy66 wrote: »

I don't think thats actually true.

UK GDP in 2008 was about £1330 billion, I think personal debt (which would include mortgages) is a bit lower than that (£1240 bn ?)

However GDP is falling faster than personal debt so it certainly could be true for 2009. So maybe a minor quibble.

I don't think the BoE is trying to re-inflate the bubble, I think rather it is trying desparatly to let the air out slowly.

Share prices are significantly lower than 10 years ago, so difficult to argue that there is a bubble there.

If you read any of Larry Elliots pieces, I doubt you would want his cure (more regulation, higher taxation, restistribution of wealth, more government intervention).

Even for Guardian readers like myself, he is a bit of a lefty crank.

Always worth a read though.
Cheers.

Hmm, maybe a tad harsh Kenny. What I took from the article pretty much a spot on slice of how it is. Not being a regular of the chap you no doubt know him far better than me, but on face value he wasn't advocating those things.

mvengemvenge

CLAPTON wrote: »

just by way of example he says

'It was all there: an over-mighty financial sector that was too big to fail; a manufacturing sector in desperate need of some tender loving care; '

' Unlike Margaret Thatcher in the mid-1970s, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were not interested in fundamental reform, and, as a result, Labour's response to the crisis was managerial rather than ideological.'


Now many people view Thatchers fundamental reforms as directly creating that overmighty financial sector and destroying much of the manufacturing industry

I think the fundamental Thatcher reform he refers to is the courage to take on the unions in the late 70's/early 80's. This is separate in my view from the 'big bang' reform in 1986 which I for one believe led us in part to this big mess.