Indebted generation must find their voice - Fintan O'Toole

OhNoYouDidn't

I think this is a very interesting and thought provoking piece. We don't need to look much further than this forum for a number of posters who actively abuse EVERYONE who stand up for themselves and progests. There clearly has been an erosion of community and collective action in Ireland towards the individual that has allowed politicians ignore us completely.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0412/1224294483327.html

Indebted generation must find their voice

The negative-equity generation should be out on the streets – but it’s hard to embrace collective power when you’ve grown up an ardent individualist

BEFORE WE can answer the question that outsiders keep asking about Ireland – why is there so little protest? – we have to ask a more basic question. Why do people protest? The answer, as a crude generalisation, is thwarted expectations.

People at the bottom of the heap seldom spark revolutions. They have learned to expect little and they put their energies into survival. It is those who have expectations that cannot be fulfilled who tend to revolt against the existing order.

Thus, in the Middle East, it is not the desperately poor who are in revolt. It is the educated young people who have just enough privilege to believe they are entitled to a better life. They expect something – a career, freedom, self-respect – that corrupt dictatorships cannot deliver.

We’ve seen this phenomenon in Ireland, too. The generation that created the State was an aspirant lower middle-class, products of the Christian Brothers and the convent schools. Its leaders were not, by and large, drawn from the large pool of the destitute, but from those who were self-confident enough to have expectations (economic and psychological) that the British-dominated state could not meet. Something similar happened in Northern Ireland in the 1960s – the system reaped the consequences of educating a generation of young Catholics to expect opportunity and equality.

This is what’s fascinating about the dog that is not barking in Ireland, the negative-equity generation. It is not entirely true to contend that this generation is suffering most from the collapse of the boom. In demographic terms, it is always children and the elderly who bear the brunt of poverty. In economic terms, the people who suffer most are not a generation but a class – the poor. But most of those who suffer poverty are ground down by it.

They are used to having their dignity insulted, to being reminded that they don’t count, to having services they depend on destroyed at the stroke of a pen. They have learned to expect little better.

If ever, though, there was a classic case of thwarted expectations, it’s the negative-equity generation. No generation in the history of Ireland grew up with such high hopes. Those of my age, raised in the 1960s and 1970s, had an infusion of optimism, but it was nothing like the heady draught of the 1990s. There was enough grimness around – the Troubles, the overweening power of the church, the persistence of poverty – to temper our expectations.

But the next generation experienced almost unlimited hope. Not alone were things visibly and rapidly getting better but most of what you saw or read told you that this was a permanent state of affairs. The only way was up.

I remember remarking several times during the boom years that all hell would break loose when this thing crashed. How could a generation with such high expectations cope with a sudden reversal of fortune? And yet, by and large, the thwarted generation has so far kept its rage and despair firmly behind the front doors of its massively overpriced houses.

Why? Because of ideology. David McWilliams memorably christened the 30- and 40-somethings “the pope’s children”. But it might be more useful to call them the children of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

At the height of the boom, we had 1.3 million people who were born between 1962 and 1981. They came to adulthood between the early 1980s and the millennium. Their consciousness was formed, in other words, by the dismantling of the postwar social democratic consensus and the rise of neo-liberalism.

The “common sense” of that era contained a number of underlying attitudes. The toxicity of many of them is now obvious: the idea that risk is always preferable to security; the notion that debt is not debt but “credit”; the belief that people at the top earn vast sums because they are extraordinarily talented. Less obvious, though, is the attitude to collective social action.

For Thatcher’s children, it was obvious that trade unions were an anachronism. Protests were a hippy-dippy indulgence. Politics was showbiz for ugly people, of interest only to bores and crooks.

Power was personal, not collective. You got what you wanted by wanting it enough. If you were poor, or exploited, or powerless, it was because you weren’t passionate enough about following your dream.

It’s not easy to get yourself out of this way of thinking. You have to engage with the notion that the social democratic consensus destroyed by Thatcher might not have been so bad after all. You have to get your head around the idea that, when things turn bad, you don’t have much power as an individual. You have to wonder whether the 1960s and its culture of protest were entirely ridiculous.

The negative-equity generation can’t reproduce the forms of collective organisation that worked for previous generations. But if it doesn’t want to be drowned in a sea of debt, it will have to find its own voice. That means realising that there are no private solutions to a public crisis and that, when times are tough, passive people get walked on.

Denerick

I have no problem with protests. People are free to protest. Equally I am free to criticise those who seem to have nothing better to do than roar and scream rather than think of solutions. Its all well and good 'standing up for yourself', but what exactly are you standing up for? Who is doing the accountancy?

And while we're at it there is no point in covering up the fact that most protests are simply the same 300 ideologues from irrelevant far left groups who have no policy ideas whatsoever.

What exactly does O'Toole suggest we do? Congregate on O'Connell street and shout meaningless slogans for an hour?

dan_d

Yeah, you see, I read this article too and it annoyed me.

I am in NE. I am not one of the generation he labels there, being born in 1982.

But the only thing I could think the whole way through, as he was applying all his rhetorical labels was - they're also the generation that voted FF back into power in '07 because "things were great" under them, and they were better than the "other shower".

I know it's not as simple as that, but still.....

(I'd say more, but in a hurry.)

later12

Did anyone else get the feeling that O'Toole was setting out to write one article, then got off that horse and mounted something totally different, and forgot to mention why? Anyway...

This is just more typical Fintan O'Toole. I'm convinced he writes on autopilot, shall we call it 'Fintan Formula. According to Fintan Formula, as per the above, the poorer people in society are always by definition: destitute, powerless, innocent and gloriously victimised. On the other hand the more affluent must (because Fintan Formula is always written in black and white) be boorishly luxurious, powerful, guilty and oppressive.

Ironically there is something self-flagellatingly attractive about this black and white hypothesis that perhaps appeals to The Irish Times Reader; a Catholic guilt dealt in Protestant ecclesiastic tones; an irritation with wealth and class division as something that, historically, has always been hurtful and unpleasant towards us.

Proof of this? I don't have any. But I don't envisage many of the innocent and destitute, leaning in their dole queues, finding much comfort from The Irish Times. if anything, these people probably have far more important things to worry about than Fintan's Formula.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/oct/14/poetry.features

...Bury that red
bandana and stick, that banjo; this is your
country, close one eye and be king.
Your people await you, their heavy washing
flaps for you in the housing estates -
a credulous people. God, you could do it, God
help you, stand on a corner stiff
with rhetoric, promising nothing under the sun.

hmmm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But if it doesn’t want to be drowned in a sea of debt, it will have to find its own voice. That means realising that there are no private solutions to a public crisis and that, when times are tough, passive people get walked on.

I look forward to the day Fintan is walking hand in hand with my landlord down O'Connell Street, appealing for my taxes to be raised to reduce my landlord's mortgage. People like me who had the moral courage to ignore the "rent is dead money" and "you have to get on the ladder" brigade during the boom, are now somehow characterised as begrudgers and scapegoats because we object to paying the debts of those who over-stretched themselves. Fintan wants us to live in a country of economic imbeciles, where the State has a duty to bail you out if your financial plans don't work out.

I don't remember a single property owner offering to give up part of their windfall gains when property prices were rising. Now however, it seems that it is the duty of everyone else to contribute when property prices were falling. If only someone had told me Irish property was supposed to be a one way bet.

southsiderosie

I actually agreed with O'Toole's assessment a lot. Social movements and reform historically are middle-class phenomenon. And I am amazed at how passive most young people are about the current situation. However, I think the problem here may have a lot to do with the messenger not the message.

I am also slightly puzzled by the fact that every time there is a thread on boards about protests, people say 'what's the point'? The point of mass protest is to act as a check on the behavior of public officials. If the head of a large corporation doesn't like something the government is doing, they can pick up the phone and talk to the minister of finance. The average citizen cannot do this. Therefore, in order to defend or promote their interests, 'regular folks' need to engage in politics by association, which may often lead to contentious street politics.

However, protest serves an additional function: it acts as a signaling mechanism to other citizens. An individual may feel like things are going badly, and may want to see change. But a social movement not only articulates those claims, but helps people realize that others feel the same way; there is a kind of 'tipping point' mechanism where more and more people get on board, protests reach a critical mass, and the tide turns. But it is hard to see where on the Irish political landscape the 'first movers' come from; as other posters have noted, pretty much any protest in Ireland involves the SWP, eirigi, or some combination thereof, and most people don't want anything to do with these groups. Subsequently, protest becomes the provence of nutters, rather than people who really do have a widely shared collective grievance.

HellFireClub

At the end of the day the damage has been done I think and there is really no way to undo it, unless Fintan O' Toole has a time machine...

later12

HellFireClub wrote: »

At the end of the day the damage has been done I think and there is really no way to undo it, unless Fintan O' Toole has a time machine...

Yes but there's only room for himself, Madam Editor, and a case of Bollinger.

Het-Field

The article is about as "thought provoking and interesting" as any edition of "Ann and Barry".

More to come.....

20Cent

Not his best article but it does pose a good question.

Why the feck are people so passive.
If half the crap we put up with happened in other countries they'd be rioting in the streets.

bullpost

Possibly its a "me" not "we" generation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KerranJast

Screw the NE generation. Between their financial incompetence and the greed of their parents generation it's landed those of us in the generation after (too young to be buying shoebox houses) having to pay for the mess though penal taxation and high unemployment >:( bah humbug

old hippy

Protest achieves nothing. Keep your head down, raise your backsides and take it.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not suggesting a riot but some big protests are in order.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It will make people feel better.

With regards to SouthSideRosie's point earlier, the problem is that mass social movements led by a middle class vanguard will only come about if we suffer from a truly inequitous system. The social movements in the middle east have their origins in resistance to strongmen dictators, and the social movements in the west during the 60s were essentially a social liberalism revolution; there were plenty of bad things happening, racial prejudice, unjust wars, political corruption; plenty of scope for social movements to take place and remake society for the better. The social welfare system in Ireland is keeping us alive, despite all our blather we are infinitely better off than many countries on earth. Without children, you can expect to live comfortably on a modest minimum wage. Not extravagantly, but you certainly won't ever go hungry and you'll always be able to gather a few quid for pints on Saturday night.

In short, we've never had it so good.

The bank bailouts are an indignity and an annoyance, but I don't see what good mass protests will do other than spook the markets and further tip this country into economic catastrophe.

serfboard

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nothing. Which is why there are no protests.

Remember who was in town this morning lads? What do you think would happen if we didn't do what they told us? The ATMs would stop is what.

People aren't protesting not because they don't know how. We're not protesting becuase

1. We're not a protest culture - we're not the French, or even the Greeks.

2. As has been said by others, a lot of protests are organised by SWP and other lunatics that no-one wants to have anything to do with.

3. What's the point? We fúcked up. We know we fúcked up. We fúcked up by continuously putting our own selfish interests instead of the national interest and electing Fianna Failers who would "deliver for my area". It's only taken us 90 years of independence, and the arrival of the IMF to make us realise what a national election for a national parliament is supposed to be for. That's why political reform has to be among our highest priorities. If this government won't do it, we'll have to vote more radically next time to make the point.

The consequence of electing fools who catered for their buddies and then hadn't a clue how to react when the shít really did hit the fan, has resulted in us having to take the medicine that we are getting.

When an independent nation demonstrates that it can't govern itself, then external organisations (IMF/ECB) will come in and do it for them. And if we don't learn that lesson - that unless you govern right, you are inevitably doomed - we will repeat this in the future.

ilovesleep

To be honest, the only thing i would protest about is for a fair ireland.
how the two ex taoiseachs are swanning around with celtic tiger pensions and not facing a trial is beyond me, while we the people of ireland pick up the tabs for their sheer and utter incompetence.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fairness donegalfella you are a speculator so the current situation is fine for people such as yourself. You are the most bailed out section of society but still don't have enough and want to see others suffer. The transfer of wealth from those who actually do something constructive to the leaches has reached breaking point something has to give.

Protest does actually work. Every right you and others enjoy came about because somebody fought for it. I know it is pointless discussing such with a libertarian though.

wee truck big driver

why dont the unions organise a protest that way they can pretend they wernt part of the problem
why dont the opposition organise a protest so they can pretend they or sorry that they got us into this situation
why dont the people who have massive negative equity and cant pay there mortages protest so they can pretend it was somebody elses fault that they bought ridiculously overpriced houses with mortages they couldnt afford
why dont th old codgers go out and protest because they dont have to they have nice pension fuel allowance medical card free travel
why dont the students protest they dont have time to too busy partying
why dont the people who or unemployed protes because they would have to leave the pub
so why dont the people who are paying all the taxes that are supposed to get us out of this mess protesting we are too busy working

wee truck big driver

oh and fintan o toole is two end of a dogs micky

Scofflaw

wee truck big driver wrote: »

oh and fintan o toole is two end of a dogs micky

I'm going to red card that, but the next time I have to look at a post like that, you'll be out on your ear.

moderately,
Scofflaw

wee truck big driver

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm going to red card that, but the next time I have to look at a post like that, you'll be out on your ear.

moderately,
Scofflaw

seems like fintan the toole is not the only prick then

Scofflaw

wee truck big driver wrote: »

seems like fintan the toole is not the only prick then

Ah well. At least you managed to get two for the price of one.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with you, the public expenditure will have to be cut, there is no point even arguing against it now, it simply must happen one way or another.

On the other hand would you protest for wind-down of banks burning creditors in orderly process trying to reduce the banking debt half of the total debt burden?

One needs to constantly in these threads underline that there are 2 debts involved, public and banking, one simply has to be brought under control (the faster the better) the other one needs to learn the basics of capitalism.

hatz7

I think the article made a lot of sense.

I think some posters here are hilarious.

"Remember who was in town this morning lads? What do you think would happen if we didn't do what they told us? The ATMs would stop is what."

I don't think that is true at all. if the ECB were to allow that to happen it would do more harm to their image. WAY more harm. What nation would have confidence in dealing with an institution that operates on a 'defy me once your out policy'?.

That is not how politics works, sorry but it isn't!!

ei.sdraob

hatz7 wrote: »

I don't think that is true at all. if the ECB were to allow that to happen it would do more harm to their image. WAY more harm. What nation would have confidence in dealing with an institution that operates on a 'defy me once your out policy'?.

Actually you have a very good point,
the ECBs job is to maintain a stable Euro and low inflation, if they decided to get too political (judgying by the noises coming from them they have gone down that road already) and lock ireland out of the Euro then that would collapse the whole currency. Since it would undermine confidence overnight in all the other countries using the euro, especially the ones in similar situation to Ireland. Teh true nightmare scenario for ECB would be people asking "hell if that can happen in Ireland it can happen here", a currency without confidence in it is not worth the paper cloth its printed on.

whiteonion

Who is this indebted generation he's talking about? I myself have NO debts. I don't even have a credit card.

blarney_boy

The couple in the five bed mansion they bought for a million euro with the italian furniture and two car garage are finding it difficult to pay their gigantic mortgage, but that's not their problem or the banks problem, it's our problem?

These people were happy to flaunt their borrowed wealth in their neighbours faces but now that they're in negative equity they've suddenly developed a social conscience!

The irish middle class mantra is "privatise the profits, socialise the losses"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

blarney_boy wrote: »

The couple in the five bed mansion they bought for a million euro with the italian furniture and two car garage are finding it difficult to pay their gigantic mortgage, but that's not their problem or the banks problem, it's our problem?

The amount of mis-placed anger towards affluence that exists in Irish society is astounding. I think it has lingered dormantly over the past few years but recently, the government mismanagement of the economy has allowed it to become acceptable again.

While I may not think much of the intelligence of imprudent borrowers, they are not the people who have decided that their debt is your problem. Even at a higher level of debt, Derek Quinlan did not get up out of his bed one morning and decide he was going to establish this thing he would call NAMA, and he would socialise his debt.

This decision was made by the people who we have elected to govern. It was not made by borrowers, landlords and speculators, however you want to try and blame them. They may not be the smartest tools in the box, but they didn't write Irish bank resolution law, the guarantees, nor decide to nationalise the banking system. Ultimately, the Government had a decision and it chose to socialise these liabilities. It was not your neighbours' decision.

ei.sdraob

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

yes unfortunatelly :mad:

Denerick

later10 wrote: »

The amount of mis-placed anger towards affluence that exists in Irish society is astounding. I think it has lingered dormantly over the past few years but recently, the government mismanagement of the economy has allowed it to become acceptable again.

While I may not think much of the intelligence of imprudent borrowers, they are not the people who have decided that their debt is your problem. Even at a higher level of debt, Derek Quinlan did not get up out of his bed one morning and decide he was going to establish this thing he would call NAMA, and he would socialise his debt.

This decision was made by the people who we have elected to govern. It was not made by borrowers, landlords and speculators, however you want to try and blame them. They may not be the smartest tools in the box, but they didn't write Irish bank resolution law, the guarantees, nor decide to nationalise the banking system. Ultimately, the Government had a decision and it chose to socialise these liabilities. It was not your neighbours' decision.

Not the same thing, to be fair. I was one of those who thought the Celtic Tiger era new middle class were mildly disgusting to be honest. Never has a more materialistic group of people came together in one generation. They knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. Italian bathtubs for 30k (Made from 'marble', or some shyte like that) and a constant stream of decking in back lawns... It was 'spend, spend, spend', and most were guilty of it. My dormant Catholicism tells me that this economic catastrophe is a gift from heaven, now we can whinge and self flaggelate with impunity.

end a eknny

later10 wrote: »

The amount of mis-placed anger towards affluence that exists in Irish society is astounding. I think it has lingered dormantly over the past few years but recently, the government mismanagement of the economy has allowed it to become acceptable again.

While I may not think much of the intelligence of imprudent borrowers, they are not the people who have decided that their debt is your problem. Even at a higher level of debt, Derek Quinlan did not get up out of his bed one morning and decide he was going to establish this thing he would call NAMA, and he would socialise his debt.

This decision was made by the people who we have elected to govern. It was not made by borrowers, landlords and speculators, however you want to try and blame them. They may not be the smartest tools in the box, but they didn't write Irish bank resolution law, the guarantees, nor decide to nationalise the banking system. Ultimately, the Government had a decision and it chose to socialise these liabilities. It was not your neighbours' decision.

it was these people greed and desire to make quick easy money that caused the problem they borrowed money which they couldnt afford and bought up investment properties inflating house prices and if the banks had gone to the wall these people would still have there property and people who saved there money in these banks would lose everything

blarney_boy

It's not that I begrudge anyone their success, people should be allowed to spend their hard earned cash on whatever they desire, italian furniture or otherwise.

What annoys me is the people who skipped over the part about earning your success and just walked into their local bank branch and borrowed enormous amounts of cash which they then blew on foreign holidays, luxury cars, overpriced houses (and italian furniture)!

Was watching prime time last week which featured a plasterer who'd moved out of his council house to go and buy a house down the country for €460,000! I was always let to believe that your mortgage should be 2.5 times your annual salary, now I know plasterers were on good money back in the boom but earning €188,000 a year as a plasterer?

Needless to say paddy the plasterer is experiencing buyers regret, and while I have a some sympathy for this plight, what the hell was he thinking taking on that kind of debt in the first place?

I'd like to remind Fintan that those of use who endured the greek chorus of 'buy a house, rent is dead money, house prices can only go up' for the last decade are not in the mood to bail out the lemmings that decide to jump of the cliff at the top of the market.

later12

Denerick wrote: »

Not the same thing, to be fair. I was one of those who thought the Celtic Tiger era new middle class were mildly disgusting to be honest. Never has a more materialistic group of people came together in one generation. They knew the price of everything and the value of nothing. Italian bathtubs for 30k (Made from 'marble', or some shyte like that)

I agree; it isn't their taste that I agree with, which was broadly boorish, vulgar and Italian (- but always Italian!). Equally, I don't think much of their reckless borrowing.

But say what we like about these people, the fact is that - while they behaved recklessly with their personal finances (as was their right) - they did not behave recklessly with the public purse.

Whatever their personal opinions on these matters, these ostentatious spenders and ostentatious borrowers from yummy mummies to landlords did not choose to guarantee the banks, did not choose to remunerate all classes of bondholders in cash, did not choose to establish NAMA, did not choose to effectively nationalise the banking system, did not choose to set ECB rates at 1% for 2 years, and did not choose to write down or write off mortgage debt. These were Government choices. The Government socialised this debt, not private borrowers. Biddy sitting on her decking in Tallaght enjoying her mint mojhito could never realistically have known that the Government would make such sweeping and ill thought decisions as she did when she bought outdoor decking of Pacific proportions for her semi-d in a rainy Poppintree Park.

And regardless of who agreed or disagreed with it, from Biddy's class to the developer class, it was ultimately the FF-Green Government's choice to socialise this debt. They were, indeed faced with an extraordinary situation, yet blame rests squarely with them; it would be disingenuous to suggest that the Government of the day had no alternative choice.

later12

blarney_boy wrote: »

What annoys me is the people who skipped over the part about earning your success and just walked into their local bank branch and borrowed enormous amounts of cash which they then blew on foreign holidays, luxury cars, overpriced houses (and italian furniture)!

Why does credit annoy you? I think you mean that the socialised liability annoys you - in which case you surely ought to be blaming the people who socialised the liability, not the borrower who had credit extended to him on private terms and could not have known that the Government would nationalise the banking system when he borrowed his money in 2002 or 2004.

acer1000

Fintin, what should they protest about? Their own individualism and their own bad choices?

For now there is no credible body or individual at the moment that could channel a cohesive opposition or protest to what was, or is being imposed on us. I imagine if a critical number gets enough pain then that could change?

In the Middle East religion is a vehicle or force of opposition. We don’t have such here.

Other countries have union leaders who have kept themselves among the people. Ours are part of the problem and have been bagging it too much to feel any connection with the people about whom they pay lip service.

On the other end of the spectrum, some countries can have business leaders who can inspire and activate people. Thinking of this, due credit must be given to M O Leary. He spent 25,000 of his own money to tell us what a waste of space Bertie Ahern was. It wasn’t popular at the time, but how right he turned out to be.

Some countries have an education system that encourages and nurtures a healthy dissension. Ours used to, but gave that up long ago.

Some countries have a media outlet that they feel they can trust. Have we? The Irish Times used to have a claim to that role, but they championed the property bubble through it’s advertising and it’s website. It must have convinced many of those unfortunate people.

So Fintin, maybe with your IT connections you could advise them regarding best times to protest outside the IT offices? I don’t think it’s Fintin’s best piece, I do have the height of respect for him, though. I’m sure he’d forgive me that little jibe…. I hope.

johnnyskeleton

The call to protest is a day late and a dollar short IMO.

There were some very small protests around the time of the bank guarantee. It even got media attention on TV3, newstalk etc. But the likes of Fintan (not specially Fintan, but media commentators) weren't interested in that.

Also, the problem with Fintan's plan is that it is completely one sided. A protest has to be against someone. Arguably people could protest against the decisions of FF to bail out the banks. But the people of Ireland overwhelmingly voted for FG and to a lesser extent the Labour party based on their election promises.

20Cent

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But the people of Ireland overwhelmingly voted for FG and to a lesser extent the Labour party based on their election promises.

Promises in FG and Labour manifesto's are what people voted on, theses were then diluted and dropped in the programme for government. Even these were broken weeks after the election. SO what are we supposed to do now wait another five years?

JustinDee

later10 wrote: »

The amount of mis-placed anger towards affluence that exists in Irish society is astounding

Its a very begrudging country we live in. Before even stopping to take a look at the circumstances of somebody who might well be doing just fine regardless of banks, once wealth is spotted, they're the problem according to the deluded class-warriors.

Some people have actually managed to live within their means and have done well. The deluded class warrior begrudges them for this.

20Cent

JustinDee wrote: »

Its a very begrudging country we live in. Before even stopping to take a look at the circumstances of somebody who might well be doing just fine regardless of banks, once wealth is spotted, they're the problem according to the deluded class-warriors.

Some people have actually managed to live within their means and have done well. The deluded class warrior begrudges them for this.

Not at all.
Its just we have a two tier system where an elite are protected from market forces, bondholders/developers and banks. While those on the lower end of the scale are screwed at every turn. It is a basic unfairness that cannot be allowed to continue. Socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor.

JustinDee

20Cent wrote: »

Not at all.
Its just we have a two tier system where an elite are protected from market forces, bondholders/developers and banks. While those on the lower end of the scale are screwed at every turn. It is a basic unfairness that cannot be allowed to continue. Socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor.

There is a misconception as to who is actually rich or part of the so-called elite. I see people having a stab at a middle class in this thread, for example. For what exactly? Why is the so-called middle-class now being classed as 'elite'? If you want to go further down this imaginary ladder of society, many people happily ditched further education to cash in on the boom by working within its thriving sectors of industry. There was also thousands who made avail of the wealth system and persisted in living beyond their means.
None of what happened was exclusive to any one 'class'.
This chestnut of perceived class-warfare is a tired old line and all too often abused.
Yes, the chosen few survive and 'the rest' pick up the pieces. The problem is the begrudgers out here not being able to identify who 'the rest' actually are. Sanctimonium ad nauseum.

acer1000

JustinDee wrote: »

There is a misconception as to who is actually rich or part of the so-called elite. I see people having a stab at a middle class in this thread, for example. For what exactly? Why is the so-called middle-class now being classed as 'elite'? If you want to go further down this imaginary ladder of society, many people happily ditched further education to cash in on the boom by working within its thriving sectors of industry. There was also thousands who made avail of the wealth system and persisted in living beyond their means.
None of what happened was exclusive to any one 'class'.
This chestnut of perceived class-warfare is a tired old line and all too often abused.
Yes, the chosen few survive and 'the rest' pick up the pieces. The problem is the begrudgers out here not being able to identify who 'the rest' actually are. Sanctimonium ad nauseum.

Here's a definition of begrudgery from the web: informal ( Irish ) resentment of any person who has achieved success or wealth

The important word is 'any'. From what I gather nobody is being a begrudger, but people rightly feel resentment to others who have achieved 'success' or wealth through unjust means, be it legal or not?

I think you may be trying to distort the scenario by deliberately trying to portray the problem in a traditional class context?

Some may like to lay all the blame at the bankers as the source of all our evil, but it obviously goes much further than that: Politicians who had an active part in destroying the country, politicians in 'opposition' who let it happen, union leaders who acted in cahoots with politicians whilst enriching themselves in the process, professionals who act as gatekeepers to their professions and who in effect operate a cartel with regard to the services they provide, media 'stars' and their politically appointed bosses who can set the agenda and police any view they or their political masters deem unsavoury. Senior ciivil servants who seem to think it's okay to screw the rest of us, whilst not touching their own excessive pay.

Have I left out anybody? Sort out the above shower, 'the rest' will be able to look after ourselves/themselves. It's not complicated. We can't afford a cabal of thieves of that size, anymore.

What's going to happen or is happening with regard to the depressed property market. Yes, you guessed it, the thieves are the only ones with the ready cash to buy it up. We need a specially targeted tax measures to prevent this mob from further profiteering on the pain of 'the rest'.

later12

acer1000 wrote: »

Here's a definition of begrudgery from the web: informal ( Irish ) resentment of any person who has achieved success or wealth

I didn't know that begrudgery was an Irish word. It is quite an appropriate little twist of fate, all the same.

The important word is 'any'. From what I gather nobody is being a begrudger, but people rightly feel resentment to others who have achieved 'success' or wealth through unjust means, be it legal or not?

People are largely referring to the credit rich here - those whose wealth derived from borrowings. Excessive reliance on credit can perhaps be a foolish means to success, but surely you are not suggesting that it is an unjust means to success?

acer1000

later10 wrote: »

I didn't know that begrudgery was an Irish word. It is quite an appropriate little twist of fate, all the same.

People are largely referring to the credit rich here - those whose wealth derived from borrowings. Excessive reliance on credit can perhaps be a foolish means to success, but surely you are not suggesting that it is an unjust means to success?

No, not at all.

People deliberately want to misrepresent or distort the issues, no matter how one may spell them out.

JustinDee

acer1000 wrote: »

Here's a definition of begrudgery from the web: informal ( Irish ) resentment of any person who has achieved success or wealth

The important word is 'any'. From what I gather nobody is being a begrudger, but people rightly feel resentment to others who have achieved 'success' or wealth through unjust means, be it legal or not?

I know what begrudge means. This is why I used it.

acer1000 wrote: »

I think you may be trying to distort the scenario by deliberately trying to portray the problem in a traditional class context?

It wasn't me who brought class into it in the first place. I'm pointing out a distorted claim that a certain perceived class is part of the 'elite' when it isn't.

hmmm

Spare us the self righteous calls of "begrudgery" from those who are trying to get someone else to pay their mortgages.

JustinDee

hmmm wrote: »

Spare us the self righteous calls of "begrudgery" from those who are trying to get someone else to pay their mortgages.

I'm not asking anyone to pay my mortgage. I live within my means, pay my dues and always have done. However, according to some, the 'class' I'm allegedly part of, is to blame and further on, an alleged working class is subsidising it. Pathetic and deluded rubbish.


.