Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Aug 8, 2019.
Or there are other things that are more important to them - like school, or child care, or work.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The only people who lost their homes were those not paying their mortgages whether they were top bank executive or anyone else.
Are you suggesting that those who cut their lawns don't care about education, child care or work?
My point is that in a capitalist economy more rewards go to those with capital. You can be a wage earner and use your saving to invest in capital.
Look around, many people have these things and they aren't "rich". They, in many cases, are functionally no different than those who don't have those things.
Of course, there are those who aren't going to have those things (on their present course) under any circumstances and under most any economic system.
No. I am suggesting that people who cut their lawns have time to mow their lawns - and often have time to manage all that other stuff, as well.
Definitely. And many can. Some can't.
Yes, results aren't equal among the population. Those that focus on what they have rather than what someone else has tend to do better.
I go to a climbing gym several times a week. When people first start climbing, they aren't sure if they are cut out for it. Maybe they are too old, the wrong sex Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , weigh too much, not strong enough, etc.
Those are excuses even though there may be a grain of truth in some of that. However if you point out that they can look around the gym and find someone else in their "category" that does climb a lot better than them, they quit complaining and then they get better.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Those complainers was losers until they received the right influence an then they became winers.!!!
Undoubtedly, there are plenty of people who are irresponsible--or just plain "bad" *--with money, but they by no means account for the vast majority. You seem to be buying into something akin to the myth of the "welfare queen." Simply put, the vast majority of households in the U.S. do not make enough money and/or have far too much debt to set aside much of anything for savings. This also inhibits them from furthering their education, and accruing even more debt, and getting a better paying job. And then, some sort of emergency or dire situation comes along, setting them back even further.
As noted in another thread, neither of us personally come from a stable economic background, yet we managed to get out of that. Doesn't mean everyone can. Also, I'm a white male--that alone afforded me considerable privilege.
* . I suspect that you are somewhat like me in certain respects: I tend to regard an awful lot of capabilities as just plain "common sensical," which, upon reflection, clearly are not. Managing money sensibly is quite a skill--one that I, fortunately (and of necessity), acquired quite early in life. When I said that we both "(got) out of that" above, I didn't mean to imply that I've attained what most would describe as "comfortable" financial security; rather, I simply know how to live, erm, "comfortably" without working all that much or earning all that much--epilepsy is somewhat limiting, but also, quite frankly, I'm kind of lazy and I prefer "play" (music, dogs, hiking, biking, etc.) to "work" (see Bob Black). Of course, I also can make money from my "play," but it's never been all that much because my "play" is simply too weird.
It might be more equitable for the government to take all income past a certain amount but considering that "the vast majority of households" don't make enough to get out of debt and save (your premise) then taking way some from "the rich" still wouldn't do much about that.
To begin with, the government is in debt and beyond that, when you divide any gains by 350,000 people the benefit to any one person is quite small.
So, I see a lot of complaining but not a lot of taking personal responsibility for individual personal finances. Most people don't "have" to be in debt in the first place.
Before credit cards, very few were in debt.
Which bank executives were unable to pay their mortgage? Or missed a single week's pay-cheque, for that matter? Bonus, even?
They lost the depositor's savings, their stockholders' investment (not the same thing!!) the insurance company's [stockholder's] money, the taxpayers' money (though they saved $260 billion in the taxes they didn't pay - I'm unaware of any factory worker or teacher receiving a tax exemption because they mismanaged their finances) not their own. Not one of them suffered any privation.
Being on the lower side of that big fat economic cloud has nothing whatever to do with fitness or lawns or wall-climbing or any of the other nonsense you people* use as inept and misdirectional analogies for blaming the necessary victims** of capitalism for the evil effects of capitalism. It's never the doers' fault; it's always the done-to's.
* undefined, but I know what I mean by it
** without whom the structure could never have been built, and without whose continued consent, it would collapse
!!!! Poor people have always been in debt since the invention of currency. When the poor - or farmers, or skilled workers, or clerical workers, or service workers - fall behind on their chronic debt, the consequences are similar through history. They became serfs, sharecroppers, galley slaves, prostitutes; they went to prison and the colonies
C'mon--people have always been in debt. You know, medical expenses (remember the pre-existing condition caveats and suchlike?), home ownership, etc.
Also, see edit in post above.
That's like saying before the Internet there were very few shootings.
I don't know what every bank executive does but my point was that anyone who doesn't pay their mortgage gets their house taken away.
Why are you ignoring that people didn't pay their mortgages. Of course they lost their houses. That's not the bank's fault and you don't "save" on taxes you don't pay when you don't own taxes because you didn't make a profit. Get real.
your not playing with the full deck that's for sure
exposing the bank & its customers to recovery action against high values while directly causing serious financial hardship to the community and customers.
you sound like a junky
That's ridiculous. Are you arguing that before credit cards we just didn't hear about debt?
If you don't make a lot of money, don't borrow money. It's only fairly "recently" that people have had to option to get into debt when they don't make a lot of money.
Coming from you, that means a lot.
That's not true. Being able to get a mortgage from a bank, in the days before repackaged mortgages was not as easy or as common place.
People were much more likely to save up for a house or car beforehand or in the case of houses to put much larger down payments down.
My parents paid cash for our small cracker box house.
I'm seeing a lot of whining here. Everything is the governments fault apparently.
I think quite a lot of bank executives at Lehman Brothers, andWashington Mutual missed more than a single week of pay.
How it works - has always worked - is: You pay them just enough to live on. But you own everything: the mine they work in, the house they live in, the stores they shop in, the doctor, the pharmacy, the pub, the school - everything - so you get to set the prices. They're okay - treading water - until the miner falls down a shaft and breaks his leg, or the farmer has three dry summers in a row, or the seventh* child has asthma ... or you decide to automate the mill and turf out all the employees with no severance pay and no place to go. After that, given compound interest, they're in the bottomless hole for life.
* Of course they have to: you own the church, too, and forbid birth control.
?? Everyone on the street where I grew up back in 1985 had a mortgage with the exception of two retired couples who had paid it off.
And I see a lot of denial here from some people here, who think that anyone can do almost anything.
Separate names with a comma.