Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-29-2012, 11:13 AM   #31
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

This will be long, so congratulations if you actually get to the end...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech Explorer View Post
Many are aware that the US unemployment rate dropped off to 7.8%. Someone I know said it's because the unemployed have given up looking for work.
that's rather unlikely, unemployment stats are not based on those receiving benefits for not working, or those that are registered with job centres as seeking work.
unemployment numbers is based on total population of working age - those that are working.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
When you go to sell your house, and find it's worth 35% less than it should be worth, you may have a bad economy.

When salary increases by employers is constantly running 5% under what it should be, you may have a bad economy.

When month after month, year after year, the hotel, motel, resort businesses continue to report lower that expected revenue, you may have a bad economy.

When older folks can no longer count on a steady income from CD accounts, Bond Funds, and Treasury Notes, because the interest rates are too low to support income growth, you may have a bad economy.
the trouble with these assertions is, the housing market has been artificially inflated pretty much everywhere in the world now. who is to say that 35% less that you were expecting, or wanted is not actually still 35% more than the house is "worth".
indeed, salary is also a fickle subject, certainly I've worked in places where people have been held back individually as a wage balancing exercise, (when I say held back I mean raise that is less than inflation - or a real terms pay cut) not because they don't work hard, but because they are actually over paid.
As a country, we tend to always want more money, always want pay rises over and above inflation, but then it is pay rises that start driving inflation, and you get the wage/inflation spiral problem.
As for hotels, generally tourism revenues speak more of other countries problems than the country where the hotel is located. of course this rather depends on the type and location of the hotel.
And old people and their stocks, it's not really the economy that is gouging this income stream, it's the constant quantitative easing that is driving down the inflation. and thus driving down the returns on investment products (which offer money for doing nothing)
- but I am of the thoughts that those who bought stocks/shares/bonds knew the risks when they gambled their money, (because that's what investment is, a gamble on the stock exchange) it's never supposed to be a constant income, and I'd rather a few people found it harder than a whole country got into even worse trouble!! -i.e the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

If you picked a horrible stock portfolio full of risk and it went bad then sucks to be you.
if you thought that you could pick a really diverse and balanced portfolio hoping that you'd limit exposure to risk and that the economy overall would always go up, then sucks to be you
if you shoved all your money in a company that did really well and you made millions then bully for you.

facts are, if you bought stocks, if you bought an "investment product" if you paid into a stocks linked pension. you gambled. if that wasn't explained to you at the start then sue your advisor for lying to you. if it was explained to you, then general common sense should have informed you that gambling involves amounts of risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
After all the political rhetoric, smoke, and BS, clears, it all boils down to this...

"The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
I prefer my own version (in my signature) at least it recognises that both extremes are equally shite as each other.

purely capitalist free market economies don't work, purely controlled economies don't work.
you'll find that in most "western" areas of the world we actually have a mixed economy anyway, regardless of whether you're in a governmentally "more left" or "more right" country.
and more or less, provided that the state only step in to provide the "free at point of access" services, (healthcare (whether that's NHS or medic(are/aid))/police/fire service/military/education/roads/refuse collection) and provided that the workers of the country, share the "socialist" spirit of this arrangement and all contribute fairly to these services then generally society works. (of course this fairly is defined as not equal amounts, but by equal ability to contribute).
the other place you want your government to step in is in controlling safety law. (e.g. workplace safety -to ensure that poor workers don't die), and monopolies law - to make sure that one company doesn't grow so big that they can ignore their "socialist responsibilities" and act with only their own interests in mind whilst screwing over Joe Public
Quote:
Originally Posted by muz View Post
Margarat thatcher was not just unpopular with people that wanted handouts ,your analysis of British political history is shockingly inaccurate . perhaps if you actually paid any attention to British history you would recall that some of those that formed her strongest opposition where in fact unionised members of the working class that didn't want their livelihood taken away from them , I would not describe those people as you did "It would be more accurate to say that she wasn't very popular with that segment of British society that wanted handouts"
Hate to breakup the party but here are the facts of the particular situation:

British coal was dead.
British coal faces were all but used up
German coal was cheaper. (German coal was cheaper because it was more accessible and more plentiful)
in order to keep X million miners in work at Y amount of pay when shifting only Z amount of coal produced far less than X*Y then government had to subsidise the miners.
When it came to the point that it cost more to subsidise people to work (i.e. give additions to make up their wages) than it would to subsidise them not to work (i.e give them dole money) then they pulled the plug on the government assisted employment.

They way in which the cuts were made was mean, spiteful and vindictive. but still had to be done.

Quote:
I have no intention of ever taking a handout from the state in my life .I dont think it is fair or respectful to label everyone who was or is an opponent of Margaret Thatcher a scrounger .
Unless you're in the top 10% of earners, you will always take handouts from the state. or at least you'll always take more than you give back.
I.e 90% of people pay (collectively) less than 50% of tax.

BBC News - What do the rich give back to society?

face it, the education (before uni), infrastructure, municipal services, dentistry (even if that was just checkups), healthcare, - even your birth. you're already hugely indebted to our socialist system and statistically highly unlikely to even pay back that burden.

Of course the same is true in America, your state provided education, which is free at the point of access will in-debt you more to your country than you will likely ever be able to pay back. (again, unless the statistically highly unlikely happens and you become one of the top 1%)
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:16 AM   #32
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
Ya know muz, up to now, I was willing to accept your condescending, often offensive language as youthful exuberance, but it is unbecoming, and starting to become offensive.
Honestly I think that you're both being as condescending and dismissive of each others views as the other, (though that's not to say that you're entirely dismissing each others views).


But there is no need to get into any name calling or extra "heated" debate.
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:18 AM   #33
muz
Golden Master
 
muz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,928
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Condescending and often offensive please do demonstrate ?

I did not say ""you may not be as educated as me" I am a little confused , If you are referring to what I think you are which is quoted here you have misquoted me and taken it completely out of context
Quote:
you could not be as educated as me yet not understand a simple bit of economics
I was not implying that I was in any way better educated than anyone else in this thread , You are quite right that I do not know the levels of education held by other posters in this thread and even if formally one is better educated it makes no difference .The career I wish to pursue will place me in situations with people of varying degrees of education I have no issues with that everyone here can vote regardless of their level of education and so everyone here is capable and able to understand and form opinions about the issues .

Surely if I hold myself in such High esteem and I recognize and am willing to enter in an informed debate with you I must surely respect you to some degree to consider you a worthwhile opponent worthy of me spending time debating with .

I was pointing out that I could not have been educated to the level that I have been and yet not understand that simple bit of economics . I was not speaking down to anyone in this thread I assure you . I can only assume you have misinterpreted what I meant which is something that can happen .

I did think your view that people from that part of the world have been killing each other for years and that they are good at it thus implying that your country is beyond that type of thing was arrogant given that when you look at the history of your own country you are not beyond political violence of the same type .as I said every country in its history will have some dark times .Was slavery not at one point perfectly legal and acceptable in your country ?
__________________
Desktop-AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+-2GB Elixer DDR2 800 250gb+500gb+500gb+120gb
Laptop-Apple Macbook Pro 13" Intel core i5(2.3ghz) 4gb Ram 320gb hard drive
muz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:30 AM   #34
Daemon Poster
 
Hameister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 887
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

@root, I have no idea why you went off on a diatribe about "stocks"???

I certainly agree with you about the stock market being risky, and a form of gambling. I also agree that anyone who plays the stock market needs to accept the losses, along with the gains. But, what the heck does that have to do with my comments. I never so much as mentioned the stock market.
__________________
HAF 932 Advanced / Corsair AX1200 / Asus Rampage IV Extreme / i7-3930K / H100 Cooling 4x120mm
16GB Corsair DDR3 / GTX 580x2 SLI + GTX 460 PhysX / SSDs Mushkin 240GB, Crucial 256GB, Crucial 512GB
Hameister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:33 AM   #35
muz
Golden Master
 
muz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,928
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by root View Post

Hate to breakup the party but here are the facts of the particular situation:

British coal was dead.
British coal faces were all but used up
German coal was cheaper. (German coal was cheaper because it was more accessible and more plentiful)
in order to keep X million miners in work at Y amount of pay when shifting only Z amount of coal produced far less than X*Y then government had to subsidise the miners.
When it came to the point that it cost more to subsidise people to work (i.e. give additions to make up their wages) than it would to subsidise them not to work (i.e give them dole money) then they pulled the plug on the government assisted employment.

They way in which the cuts were made was mean, spiteful and vindictive. but still had to be done.
Oh I am well aware of the facts of that particular situation however I am saying the motivation of the miners who where actually striking was that they did not want to be out of work

I was not commenting on the actual decision to close the mines itself which you correctly asserted was based on sound financial reasoning I was merely using it to demonstrate that not everyone who was an opponent of thatcher was intent on just taking handouts the miners at the pickets themselves where more concerned about being out of work and the damage that would be done to the communities that used to rely on mining . Of course the miners where not thinking about the bigger financial picture however would you be if you where facing your livelihood being taken from you and you simply consigned to the scrapheap of unemployment that was growing during thatchers years in power ? Don't forget in this day and age there is massively increased access to adult education etc but in the 70's and 80's the education system was constructed so that if you where a miner you would always be a miner . If I where in that situation I would be fearful about my future employment prospects as well forgetting the rest of the big financial picture

Quote:
Unless you're in the top 10% of earners, you will always take handouts from the state. or at least you'll always take more than you give back.
I.e 90% of people pay (collectively) less than 50% of tax.

BBC News - What do the rich give back to society?

face it, the education (before uni), infrastructure, municipal services, dentistry (even if that was just checkups), healthcare, - even your birth. you're already hugely indebted to our socialist system and statistically highly unlikely to even pay back that burden.

Of course the same is true in America, your state provided education, which is free at the point of access will in-debt you more to your country than yo
Perhaps I aspire to be one of the top 10% of earners .

however joking aside I am aware that I will always take more from the state in the way of healthcare and education despite having to pay for part of my degree .However I agree that this is the way things should be

putting that aside When I say handouts I meant that I hope never to have to take unemployment benefit from the state as an alternative to working to earn my own money to pay for day to day things in life .
__________________
Desktop-AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+-2GB Elixer DDR2 800 250gb+500gb+500gb+120gb
Laptop-Apple Macbook Pro 13" Intel core i5(2.3ghz) 4gb Ram 320gb hard drive
muz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 11:50 AM   #36
Daemon Poster
 
Hameister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 887
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by muz View Post
...I can only assume you have misinterpreted what I meant which is something that can happen...
Ok then, let's just assume that it was a misunderstanding and go from there.

We were supposed to be discussing Syria. That was your question. Next thing I know you're all over the map. Your bringing in America's treatment of Native Americans, our Civil War, etc. Those issues, have nothing what-so-ever to do with the issue you wished to discuss which is Syria. One topic at a time ok?

I make no apologies for my opinions as regards Syria. You use words like prejudice, which has no bearing at all on my comments. It's not prejudice, it's simple fact. The Arab cultures have been warring with one another for thousands of years, that's their history.

Now we introduce these jihadist religious lunatics that want to kill everyone that doesn't agree with them. So of course, I think it's a very natural reaction for me to say let them kill themselves. I don't want to spill one drop of American blood that isn't absolutely necessary.
__________________
HAF 932 Advanced / Corsair AX1200 / Asus Rampage IV Extreme / i7-3930K / H100 Cooling 4x120mm
16GB Corsair DDR3 / GTX 580x2 SLI + GTX 460 PhysX / SSDs Mushkin 240GB, Crucial 256GB, Crucial 512GB
Hameister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 12:00 PM   #37
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hameister View Post
@root, I have no idea why you went off on a diatribe about "stocks"???

I certainly agree with you about the stock market being risky, and a form of gambling. I also agree that anyone who plays the stock market needs to accept the losses, along with the gains. But, what the heck does that have to do with my comments. I never so much as mentioned the stock market.
Quote:
When older folks can no longer count on a steady income from CD accounts, Bond Funds, and Treasury Notes, because the interest rates are too low to support income growth
government bonds are just stocks in the country but by another name, they are guaranteed no loss, in numbers, but real term losses given inflation etc or falling interest rates are not guaranteed.

I thought I covered it nicely with the point, if you have a middle of the road portfolio of products then it's not surprising that whilst you are insulated against any particular shock, in the case of company stocks this could be poor profits, bad forecasts bankrupcy etc, but you will find that the general economy has a much greater swaying effect on your portfolio.

facts are, those who bought "investment products" gambled. -there was never a guaranteed increased return.
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 12:13 PM   #38
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by muz View Post
Of course the miners where not thinking about the bigger financial picture however would you be if you where facing your livelihood being taken from you and you simply consigned to the scrapheap of unemployment that was growing during thatchers years in power ? Don't forget in this day and age there is massively increased access to adult education etc but in the 70's and 80's the education system was constructed so that if you where a miner you would always be a miner . If I where in that situation I would be fearful about my future employment prospects as well forgetting the rest of the big financial picture
Respectfully, I disagree.
nobody ever had a career "mapped for life".
my father left school in the 70's, and to this day his only qualification is a level 2 in art, his has absolutely no other qualifications having failed everything else.
this hasn't stopped him working every day of his life.
He was a builder in the early 80's until the recession, (the same one that made mining unaffordable) also bought the construction industry to a halt.
he was unemployed then for all of 6 weeks, before he started his own business, which he has done ever since.

Respectfully, the notion that people are consigned to the scrap heap because they job that they were doing is no longer available I find a laughable excuse for laziness.

I'm also one of these people who agree with what Norman Tebbit once said. (he's an unpopular conservative politician of the conservative era)

he said: "I grew up in the '30s with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it."

indeed, I find it hard to argue that if you can't find work, you may necessarily need to move to a place where you can find work. and if this means re-locating across the country, or even to a different country then so be it.

-it may be interesting to realise that America being the country that it is, this is largely exactly how people forefathers got there, there was no work where they were, so they moved themselves and their families to a place where there was work such that they could make a living.

In this country there were a lot of people deeply offended by the idea that if there was no work local to you that you should move, I doubt that there would be as much outrage in the states over such a comment.

my point is... even in the 70's and 80's there was work available, if you we willing to search hard enough and far enough to find it.
those that did search for work kept working, those that did not are the likely candidates for being those families of 3rd generation benefit claimants who have never worked a day in their lives, just as their fathers never worked a day in their lives, just as their fathers lost their job and lived out their days on state support.
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 12:20 PM   #39
Daemon Poster
 
Hameister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 887
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by root View Post
government bonds are just stocks in the country but by another name, they are guaranteed no loss, in numbers, but real term losses given inflation etc or falling interest rates are not guaranteed.

I thought I covered it nicely with the point, if you have a middle of the road portfolio of products then it's not surprising that whilst you are insulated against any particular shock, in the case of company stocks this could be poor profits, bad forecasts bankrupcy etc, but you will find that the general economy has a much greater swaying effect on your portfolio.

facts are, those who bought "investment products" gambled. -there was never a guaranteed increased return.
It is apparent from your comments that you are not familiar with Bonds, Treasury Notes, or a CD. You keep referring to stock portfolios. If you had ever purchased one of these instruments, you would never describe them in that fashion.

These have no risk! Nada, 0% risk. People purchase these because they want a guaranteed return. Because they do not wish to risk their money. When you buy these investments, you are told that they mature at a certain time. You are told the guaranteed interest rate they will pay.

My earlier point was that traditionally, for many decades, retired people could always rely on purchasing a CD for instance at 4.5% that would guarantee them $450 on a $10,000 CD in 1 year. Or, a municipal bond that would be gaurenteed to pay 5.7% a year for 10 years. Now because of this economy, a CD is only earning .3%, which pays almost nothing on that same $10,000. The money is still guaranteed income, it's just far less than it should be, and that's a result of the Fed. trying to stimulate the economy by printing more money. You need to stop mixing up the stock portfolio risk takers, with the folks who purchase guaranteed, no risk investments.
__________________
HAF 932 Advanced / Corsair AX1200 / Asus Rampage IV Extreme / i7-3930K / H100 Cooling 4x120mm
16GB Corsair DDR3 / GTX 580x2 SLI + GTX 460 PhysX / SSDs Mushkin 240GB, Crucial 256GB, Crucial 512GB
Hameister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2012, 12:33 PM   #40
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: The "Non-Political" Political Thread

Quote:
The money is still guaranteed income, it's just far less than it should be, and that's a result of the Fed. trying to stimulate the economy by printing more money. You need to stop mixing up the stock portfolio risk takers, with the folks who purchase guaranteed, no risk investments.
As I keep saying, those who "bet the farm" on the idea that there would always be a freely available source of free money are idiots.

I'm well aware that when you buy a bond you get a price for the return of that bond.
and that's great an marvelous. but my point is.

if your ENTIRE pension strategy is:
that looks good, I should always be able to make [for example] 7.5% return in years 1-3 on my investment. then you fundamental did not understand the product.

There was never, and indeed never has been a cast iron guarentee on the performance of any financial product in real terms in the market place.

and if your retirement strategy was, I'll save and buy bonds as they are always good for it. then I have little sympathy that you are not making the returns you wanted.

the point is that your returns are not guaranteed past any point in time.
or past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
you may buy bonds with a good return rate today, but you do not know what the same bonds will be doing if you buy them tomorrow instead, or next year etc...

or indeed as I also said.

Your interest returns may not keep up with inflation. - which is written on every bond advertisement in this country.

which is the short way of saying,
0.3% return is ridiculous when inflation is running at 15 times that! or the spending power of your money is diminished with inflation. such that your investment may not work out as you

sure, your return (when you buy the product) is guaranteed, but whether that is a real-terms win or a real terms lose is still a gamble!

buying bonds is a gamble.
__________________

__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0