We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council Pay Freeze
Comments
-
lemonjelly wrote: »
A fair point.
However, the manner in which Alex Ferguson has managed his football team wasn't in a style that threatened to put the whole system of football in jeapordy, in a manner which clearly was negligent and wasn't in line with interests of customers.
People get away with dodgy stuff in the private sector all the time. The successes you allude to in the financial sector were built on foundations of sand. Personally, I'm not sure we've got to the bottom of it yet. Whilst I'm not sure whether the institutions should have been allowed to fail, what does concern me is that it isn't the institution whic is the problem, itis the people in charge. I'd bet a pound to a penny that those involved at high levels in all the financial services which needed government support have now moved on to other powerful, responsible and highly paid roles elsewhere. Why? They've shown they can't be trusted and are negligent. As a result of their actions unemployment has risen, people have lost their homes, the whole country has suffered, and your tax bill as well as everyone else's has gone up. Have they suffered? No. They just move on to the next thing, and will get away with it again and again. And get paid far far far too much for failure.
Your argument is based on the rather simplistic assumption that this recession is based solely on the banking crisis. Not true. It is just one part of a much bigger picture.
The rise of Chinese manufacturing production. The rise in commodity prices. The rising living standard expectations of the western middle classes. Asset price bubbles. Geopolitical issues.
All of these things came together and have contributed to the current recession. The (admittedly) systematic failure of banking governance rules has both contributed to and ironically been prompted by all of these to create a perfect storm.
Charlie Wong and his demand for higher wages in a Wuhan toy factory to buy a $4000 car for his family who have recently moved from the country are as much to blame for the recession as Fred the Shred.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »Nope.
And the REAL shame is, as I was just typing out a lengthy comment, I thought to myself I'd like to type a cordial post to you about the fact that we were actually discussing the issue, with both of us bringing valid points to debate.
Sadly, you instantly prove me wrong and personalize the matter...
How lovely, but while I'd like to get all chummy and cordial etc etc, but I'm far too impatient for that. As for personalising it, you are no more than a few characters on a screen. No offence. :cool:0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »If they care about their business, no. Best qualified person should get the job.
Exactly, but it is their choice. I would add that best qualified does not necessarily mean the individual with the best academic achievements.Sir Jack Hayward put his son in charge of WWFC not so long ago. The club was mismanaged, and in the end the son was sacked, & I believe Sir Jack was suing him over allegations of impropriety.
And the point is??Your arguement is preservation of the status quo, and implies that by engaging in hard work & acheiving qualifications is a waste of time as business owners will only look after their own
Total fabrication, where did I say that? My point is that there is a huge difference between private and public funding. That said business owners are entitled to look after their own if that's what they choose to do, not that I would suggest it's a recipe for success.lemonjelly wrote: »Tosh!Failing departments get restructured and retrained to allow them to fulfil the purpose they are there for. Negligent or incompetant staff are removed.
You really are dillusional if you believe that.0 -
I went in Lidl for the first time the other day, amazing! the till person cleared about five customers in a couple of minutes:T someone told me that they get paid a lot more than the other supermarkets staff, is that true?
No idea. FWIW I don't not shop in there for snob value, I don't shop in there because of animal welfare/farming issues and because we don't buy much packet food and finally, because I have an existing souce for veg. It is very good for sweets for friends children at christmas and easter (lots of nice marzipan) and if I were going in I'd certainly consider looking at washing powder etc: (laundry product choice is always a biger decision than it should be, but you live with the smell of it for a while:o ). I used it more for stuff like that in Italy becauseit was very near pne of my flats, so easy to walk there and bring home.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »
Your argument is based on the rather simplistic assumption that this recession is based solely on the banking crisis. Not true. It is just one part of a much bigger picture.
The rise of Chinese manufacturing production. The rise in commodity prices. The rising living standard expectations of the western middle classes. Asset price bubbles. Geopolitical issues.
All of these things came together and have contributed to the current recession. The (admittedly) systematic failure of banking governance rules has both contributed to and ironically been prompted by all of these to create a perfect storm.
Charlie Wong and his demand for higher wages in a Wuhan toy factory to buy a $4000 car for his family who have recently moved from the country are as much to blame for the recession as Fred the Shred.
Disagree on this.
The issues you put forward here are no more than capitalism taking it's course. The increases in recent years of outsourcing, cost cutting, and subsequently corner cutting is capitalism doing what capitalism does - looking to increase those margins, & consumers demanding cheaper goods. If we agree on your perspective, then the recession was caused by capitalism.
This recession was instigated by the swift and sudden withdrawal of credit from the economy as a whole. In essence, caused by the banking industry engaging in bad/poor practise for over a decade. By suddenly removing this credit, the domino effect on the rest of the economy was profound. Because the banking industry foundations were crumbling beneath it.
This had a knock on effect of adversely affecting other industries, creating increased loss of confidence in markets.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
-
How lovely, but while I'd like to get all chummy and cordial etc etc, but I'm far too impatient for that. As for personalising it, you are no more than a few characters on a screen. No offence. :cool:
No offence taken. :cool:
I was trying to say that when not personal, you debate the points well, eloquently, and it does make for good debate.
I like the debate. That is what we're here for isn't it?
I just think that personalising issues helps no-one. & I also think that it detracts from the debate. A person can be enjoying a debate up to the point where it appears the other party brings personal insults in to it. It also gives the impression the other party is struggling to back up their view, so there are no winners.
Regarding being cordial/chummy etc, no need for that. I believe there is a need for manners though, even on a fora. (More in relation to some of the posts earlier on this thread).It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
-
lemonjelly wrote: »
This recession was instigated by the swift and sudden withdrawal of credit from the economy as a whole. In essence, caused by the banking industry engaging in bad/poor practise for over a decade. By suddenly removing this credit, the domino effect on the rest of the economy was profound. Because the banking industry foundations were crumbling beneath it.
.
Far too simplistic, again. To say it was caused by the withdrawal of credit is like saying WW1 was caused by the assassination of some random archduke in yugoslavia.
Why was credit withdrawn swiftly? What caused that? What forces drove the forces which drove the forces etc etc? If you think a handful of bank executives have the power to bring the world into a recession, you're deluded.
The withdrawal of credit was as much as sympton as an effect.
But you're right in one regard. Capital caused the recession. It's a natural cyclical rotation, and - as always - capitalism will correct itself and emerge stronger than ever.
Someone has to generate wealth to pay public sector wages, after all.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »
I like the debate. That is what we're here for isn't it?
Sure, so long as you accept that I'm right and you're wrong. I have no argument with that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards