Cost of living crisis.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Sorry?

Sorry, not directed at you mate, was adding to your reply. Asinine asides about teachers and other folks more interested in helping people than self-interest make me acerbic.

[ozleicester]

Commonwealth bank shareholders will share A RECORD AMOUNT OF PROFIT

TEN

BILLION

DOLLARS

$10,000,000,000

 

Increased homelessness, food banks, poverty...tell me again how well neo capitalism is working

FFS

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

Commonwealth bank shareholders will share A RECORD AMOUNT OF PROFIT

TEN

BILLION

DOLLARS

$10,000,000,000

 

Increased homelessness, food banks, poverty...tell me again how well neo capitalism is working

FFS

Verging on windfall tax territory imo.  Create a fund to support those who are struggling with mortgage payments.

[ozleicester]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Verging on windfall tax territory imo.  Create a fund to support those who are struggling with mortgage payments.

 "verging"  

[ozleicester]

So the guy who increases your mortgage rate, so that you have less money to spend and the wealthy bank shareholders have even more... thinks maybe its not the best idea?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-13/philip-lowe-says-there-could-be-better-ways-to-manage-inflation/102722798

fvck these people and especially shareholders

[Lako42]

On 13/08/2023 at 05:19, ozleicester said:

fvck these people and especially shareholders

A lot of shareholders are normal people who are trying to offset the bum ****ing  

 

 

They are also usually the 1st to be shafted by the markets and funds 

[Tommy G]

7 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

A lot of shareholders are normal people who are trying to offset the bum ****ing  

 

 

They are also usually the 1st to be shafted by the markets and funds 

Try and ignore him he's a WUM, has some odd views on the way the world works!

[ozleicester]

5 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Try and ignore him he's a WUM, has some odd views on the way the world works!

Odd views?
1) People shouldnt be homeless  when others have empty houses
2) People shouldnt be starving/hungry while others have too much

3) No one should be allowed to be a billionaire while there is poverty and preventable child deaths


Odd that.

 

[mazarron fox]

21 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Odd views?
1) People shouldnt be homeless  when others have empty houses
2) People shouldnt be starving/hungry while others have too much

3) No one should be allowed to be a billionaire while there is poverty and preventable child deaths


Odd that.

 

1) so people who are waiting to rent their houses that are temporarily standing empty should have them confiscated or be forced to put homeless in it?

2) Who determines what’s enough? You the authorities or spot checks to see what the family are being fed.

3)So take the money off of the rich and distribute it amongst the work shy?

 

odd that

 

sounds like communism where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

 

god help us all if these champagne socialists are voted in to power

 

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Try and ignore him he's a WUM, has some odd views on the way the world works!

... while I'll be the first to say that a fair few of Oz's suggestions are radical and likely impractical in the short term (sorry Oz, just the way I see it), the implication here that the "way the world works" is just one way and cannot or will not change is (to use a NFP term) the mindset of an ostrich with its head in the sand while someone is lobbing grenades into the dunes.

 

Evolutionary law values adaptation above all else and it's a matter of fact that the current system is now unsustainable in a practical fashion, so either we change it in a manner we can control or it will change in a manner thar we can't - and will likely be very, very messy.

[Foxin_Mad]

On 09/08/2023 at 04:09, ozleicester said:

Commonwealth bank shareholders will share A RECORD AMOUNT OF PROFIT

TEN

BILLION

DOLLARS

$10,000,000,000

 

Increased homelessness, food banks, poverty...tell me again how well neo capitalism is working

FFS

Arguably what we have now isnt really 'capitalism'.

 

Certainally what we have in the UK is some kind of twisted bastardised psuedo system where investment is nationalised, profits are privatised and the tax payer is expected to bail out when the management of a bastardised pseduo company **** up!

 

This does not work proper capitalism is you start a company, you invest or speculate, you make money you can extract money, if you overcommit or take too much out, the company fails, tough luck, your problem!

 

The common failing in any system is human greed, mayeb thats a fight or flight thing?

 

The people with lots of money often end up being the wrong type of people in either system, why is that?

 

Like if I was every fortuntate to be extremely wealthy I would like to think I would do a lot of good in the world (at least locally), I see that as a legacy, a lot of rich people dont seem to have that attitude and just want to accumalate more and spend more on vanity. 

Edited 14 August 2023 by Foxin_Mad

[SpacedX]

On 13/08/2023 at 05:19, ozleicester said:

So the guy who increases your mortgage rate, so that you have less money to spend and the wealthy bank shareholders have even more... thinks maybe its not the best idea?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-13/philip-lowe-says-there-could-be-better-ways-to-manage-inflation/102722798

fvck these people and especially shareholders

[ozleicester]

19 minutes ago, mazarron fox said:

1) so people who are waiting to rent their houses that are temporarily standing empty should have them confiscated or be forced to put homeless in it?  


 

2) Who determines what’s enough? You the authorities or spot checks to see what the family are being fed.  

3)So take the money off of the rich and distribute it amongst the work shy?  

 

odd that

 

sounds like communism where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

 

god help us all if these champagne socialists are voted in to power

 

Do you seriously think this is what i meant?

[ozleicester]

All these "Its communist!" shouters, where were you when people were being kicked out of their homes in 2009... but the banks were being financed by governments?

 

In the period September 2007 to December 2009, during the events now widely known as the Global Financial Crisis, the UK government enacted a number of financial interventions in support of the UK banking sector and four UK banks in particular.

At its peak, the cash cost of these interventions was £137 billion, paid to the banks in the form of loans and new capital. Most of this outlay has been recouped over the years. As at October 2021, the UK Office for Budget Responsibility reported the cost of these interventions as £33 billion, comprising a loss of £35.5 billion on the NatWest (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland) rescue,

Edited 14 August 2023 by ozleicester

[Foxdiamond]

40 minutes ago, mazarron fox said:

1) so people who are waiting to rent their houses that are temporarily standing empty should have them confiscated or be forced to put homeless in it?

2) Who determines what’s enough? You the authorities or spot checks to see what the family are being fed.

3)So take the money off of the rich and distribute it amongst the work shy?

 

odd that

 

sounds like communism where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

 

god help us all if these champagne socialists are voted in to power

 

Give me a champagne socialist over champagne tories anytime

[Foxin_Mad]

20 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

All these "Its communist!" shouters, where were you when people were being kicked out of their homes in 2009... but the banks were being financed by governments?

 

In the period September 2007 to December 2009, during the events now widely known as the Global Financial Crisis, the UK government enacted a number of financial interventions in support of the UK banking sector and four UK banks in particular.

At its peak, the cash cost of these interventions was £137 billion, paid to the banks in the form of loans and new capital. Most of this outlay has been recouped over the years. As at October 2021, the UK Office for Budget Responsibility reported the cost of these interventions as £33 billion, comprising a loss of £35.5 billion on the NatWest (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland) rescue,

This is kind of the issue with the 'system' we have.

The banks should not have been 'bailed out' as such, the shareholders, the organisations should have paid the price for their incompetence and failure. They never really did or will in this system.

An attitude of something was 'too big to fail' was taken, this was wrong they should have made an example and put these banks into administration and liquidated them properly whilst transfering mortage assets and deposits into a national bank of last resort. It should have been treated like any other bankfupt business. 

Edited 14 August 2023 by Foxin_Mad

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, Foxin_Mad said:

This is kind of the issue with the 'system' we have.

The banks should not have been 'bailed out' as such, the shareholders, the organisations should have paid the price for their incompetence and failure. They never really did or will in this system.

An attitude of something was 'too big to fail' was taken, this was wrong they should have made an example and put these banks into administration and liquidated them properly whilst transfering mortage assets and deposits into a national bank of last resort. It should have been treated like any other bankfupt business. 

Quite.  People scream "yay capitalism, boo socialism" when it's making profits, but then demand socialism when their capital is at risk.  It's written in black and white in pension funds that there's a risk that investments can go up as well as down, but watch these neo-cons go crying to the state when the value drops like it did during Trussonomics and 2007.  There's also this ignorant belief that these holy shareholders were investors in organisations that raised their capital and not just people who've used market makers to buy shares off other individuals providing zero investment into said listed companies.

Edited 14 August 2023 by Zear0

[SemperEadem]

Having spent a little more time back up in Leicester over the last month or so I felt it looked visibly struggling and rough now.

It seemed to take longer than other cities of its size to reach that point.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, SemperEadem said:

Having spent a little more time back up in Leicester over the last month or so I felt it looked visibly struggling and rough now.

It seemed to take longer than other cities of its size to reach that point.

Seeing as I'll be in the area next month for the first time in a long while, I'll be interested - though a little saddened - to see such a decline for myself.

[SemperEadem]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Seeing as I'll be in the area next month for the first time in a long while, I'll be interested - though a little saddened - to see such a decline for myself.

Market Street/Belvoir Street in particular looked and felt beaten down. You have always had pockets of it like Charles Street/Humberstone Gate and Church gate but its now creeping in to 'the better ends' of the city centre.

[ozleicester]

change is coming
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/group-50-people-shoplift-100k-luxury-items-l-mall-used-bear-spray-guar-rcna99598

[ozleicester]

Change is coming
https://www.businessinsider.com/massachusetts-millionaire-tax-gets-kids-free-school-lunches-2023-8?utm_source=reddit.com

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Foxin_Mad said:

This is kind of the issue with the 'system' we have.

The banks should not have been 'bailed out' as such, the shareholders, the organisations should have paid the price for their incompetence and failure. They never really did or will in this system.

An attitude of something was 'too big to fail' was taken, this was wrong they should have made an example and put these banks into administration and liquidated them properly whilst transfering mortage assets and deposits into a national bank of last resort. It should have been treated like any other bankfupt business. 

Shareholders lost a vast amount though. Post bailout their share of Natwest was diluted to 16%,  so they lost billions and rightly so.  The bailout wasn’t for the banks or the shareholders but to prevent a complete collapse of the  UK / global banking system and economy.  That would have cost a lot more than £33bn that is for sure.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

change is coming
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/group-50-people-shoplift-100k-luxury-items-l-mall-used-bear-spray-guar-rcna99598

Nice for the security guards.  They’re not just doing a job trying to pay the bills and feed their families I suppose.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

The idea it has to be capitalism or socialism/communism is a false dichotomy.

 

People often say that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. On the other hand there are arguments to be made about the extent of American foreign policy in making that the case. Either way, I don't think it's relevant. 

 

Ignoring the alternative systems used before, it's pretty clear that capitalism as practiced in the US and UK has failed the people badly. Though it hasn't actually failed in terms of what it is set up to do.

 

The UK and US have a different corporate governance regime that elsewhere on the planet. It is much more geared towards shareholders first. Businesses literally exist to increase value to shareholders. In Europe there are other aspects to corporate governance that have seen less corporate excess.

 

Over decades we've seen that in practice this means cutting enjoyment costs by letting wages fall a fast as possible. Cutting production costs by using cheaper materials and pushing for reductions in consumer, environmental and other protections and what they like to call 'red tape'. Increasing shareholder dividends, even when companies aren't putting money into pension schemes as they should be. Then there are issues like fire and rehire, benefit system supporting low wage employers etc that also hurt ordinary people.

 

The end result is that over decades the % of GDP that goes to workers has fallen significantly, while the amount going to capital has risen significantly. So as GDP has risen, virtually all of the benefit has gone to capital. 

 

This is what capitalism was designed for. The clue is in the title. It's there to build capital - to concentrate the money and assets held across the economy, not to spread them out.

 

You may not like socialism but capitalism has also failed. We need a new approach that supports ordinary people - surely that's why we have an economy - and doesn't wreck the ecosystem for the benefit of a relative handful of ultra rich.

 

I see that virtually everybody - from the right to the left - agrees on most of the same problems. It's just the solutions that aren't agreed upon. For the most part it's because they've been hoodwinked into believing there's no alternative, when really the discussion needed is what the alternative should be.