Richard Hillman wrote: » This is what happens when you introduce Communism through the back door.
CalamariFritti wrote: » I think it's more that the trickling down thing is a bit slow.
draiochtanois wrote: » Buying 2 of those every day for 5 years = €16790
Wanderer78 wrote: » again, agree, but the problem now is the amount of debt, particularly private debt, but again, are we really wealthier or debtier? pardon the pun:) again, we really do need to start addressing these debt problems, theyre starting to have seriously negative effects on our societies. its very evident in younger generations and i do think it ll stifle our progression as a species. i do believe the true wealth for many if not all innovations are ending in the hands of the minority, this is a problem!
cefh17 wrote: » This isn't an 'oh I'm great' post, and I realise that I'm lucky in being able to do that.. but at the same time people need to realise that the old age pension won't be there in the same guise that it is now when we hit retirement age. And that really unless you have some kind of emergency fund that you're not really as comfortable and safe as you think. They really need to do some sort of basic economics/budgeting/how to be an adult class in secondary school that's mandatory. And scrap Irish in its place preferably
Crypto Coin wrote: » We are wealthier and we have more debt. Forget about money for a minute. Just look at what we produce. We produce higher quanities per person, and higher quality per person. An hours unskiller labour gets you a vast collection of music to listen to for one month. An hours unskilled labour could get you maybe one CD twenty years ago. Nobody is forced to take out debt. You can live wealthy lifestyle (relative to the past) on a minimu wage job without ever taking out any form of loans.
Wanderer78 wrote: » but has the majority gained financially from this access to these products and services? im not disputing your facts, you are correct in that regard. sadly, this is where believers in neoclassical theory fall, i.e they tend to ignore money, its creation and debt in their theories, methods and models. we need to start thinking about this and including it in our economic systems and models, asap, or this could all collapse in a blaze of glory, the crash in 2008 was a wake up call regarding these issues. oh famous last words, try live in a modern economy such as ours without debt and see what happens!;)
Crypto Coin wrote: » People gain from access to the products, the products are the wealth. Money is useless if without products and services. You are thinking about this from a money perspective. If you have one billion euro but nobody wants to make a product or service then the money is useless. When you watch a ultra high definition tv for the same price as a crt tv from 20 years ago you are wealthier. Even though you might not have more money.
Wanderer78 wrote: » so people are wealthy if they have stuff, but debt accumulation isnt really that important? this is all sounding very neoclassical:) i must be poor then, my 18 year old crt is still going, not strongly unfortunately:)
mfceiling wrote: 2 music festivals a year @â;‚¬750 a time...really? 2 takeaway coffees EVERY day for 365 days of the year (good luck finding a coffee shop open on Xmas day).
pilly wrote: » Believe me as a middle aged aul one you will have better memories of those music festivals than you will of the day you took on a lifetime of debt.
DivingDuck wrote: I remember my college days pretty fondly, but my first night in my own home was significantly more meaningful than any drink-fuelled college experience, and I look back on it with a lot more warmth.
Crypto Coin wrote: » Wealth is relative, people are wealthier on average if they have access to better products and service and more of them. I never said debt accumulation isn't important. Debt is a useful tool for an economy which creates huge wealth. Tools used in the wrong manner can also destroy wealth. Ultimately, for a wealthy society, the population creates more products, better products, and cheaper products. We are a very wealthy society, it is perfectly possible to live very prosperous lifestyle in comparison to the past without taking out loans. When the washing machine was invented, wealth was created.
Wanderer78 wrote: » now theres a statement! lets take a look at this, america is a fine example of where this statement collapses, europe isnt far behind, as are other developed parts of the world. so america, no debt, equals little or no higher education, equals little chance of obtaining a decent wage. could you even obtain a place to live in certain places on low wage there? believe it or not, people are actually taking out loans here to get themselves and their kids through our educational system. we re on the way!;) so if the majority take on the majority of the debt accumulated from the production of these goods and services, and the minority gain the actual wealth, this is ok, and is sustainable?
pilly wrote: » I don't drink so perhaps my memories of music festivals are less foggy.
Crypto Coin wrote: » I was referencing an individual, an individual can be relatively prosperous and debt free on the minimum wage. I already said debt is a useful tool for an economy which can hugely increase wealth. With debt available, people can set up businesses which wouldn't have otherwise been possible. These businesses can create value and wealth.
Wanderer78 wrote: » hmmm, this conversation is getting a bit weird, prosperous and minimum wage in the same sentence! :eek: oh deary me, we ve got some work to be doing if some believe this, i also suspect some of our policy makers and politicians actually believe this to. agree, debt most certainly is a necessary evil, and can do fantastic things as you described, but the accumulation of debt, particularly private debt is now becoming a serious problem, its unsustainable. its effectively helping to create a modern day 'rentier class', leading to a trickle up of wealth
Crypto Coin wrote: » If you could go back in time 60 years I think you would change your opinion on what prosperous is. There is nothing inherently wrong with debt. Overall it creates hige wealth compared to without debt, and also it can destroy wealth if not managed properly.
hurler32 wrote: » My main argument is there is a bigger Percentage of the workforce earning the minimum wage 9.75 per hour or close to it than ever before ..if you are in what's deemed to be a unskilled or moderately skilled job ... the employers opening stance is ... Minimum wage ... if you won't do it .. they'll get a Romanian or Albanian like Panda waste .. Meanwhile the company owner will edge their way closer to Billionaire status ...
Wanderer78 wrote: » oh please be aware, i do realise theres far more 'wealth' around nowadays, i would even class myself as wealthy, and i have very little compared to many my age in this country, my problem is with the distribution of 'wealth' and our actually definition of wealth. if one has large amounts of debt, are they considered 'wealthy'?
Geuze wrote: » Gross wealth = before debt Net wealth = after debt taken off See here:http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/socialconditions/2013/hfcs2013.pdf
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Wanderer78 wrote: » sorry i cant read that, can you explain it to me? thank you
Geuze wrote: » It's a 53 page PDF.