Born Bankrupt

[mjdgreg]

One for the diary.

Sky News - 24th August, 19:30

Jeff Randall looks at the financial obligations inherited by a child born in Britain today.

[mjdgreg]

For those of you that missed it. I could have written every word. Shame on you that want to pass our debts on to future generations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUXxx0sIiC8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQVyBo8HMsc

[BillyStubbsTears]

I could have written every word.

With your form Mick, I have no doubt that you WILL do in some thread over the next few weeks.

[mjdgreg]

With your form mjdgreg, I have no doubt that you WILL do in some thread over the next few weeks.

You should be the first one to hang your head in shame. Well maybe the second one, after your mate Gordon Brown.

[Marydene Rover]

Going to watch it tonight on Sky Anytime my mate said it's a real eye opener.

[mjdgreg]

Going to watch it tonight on Sky Anytime my mate said it's a real eye opener.

I'd be amazed if anyone that watched it didn't fall in line with my views on the economy. I even think if BST watched it with an open mind he would realise that I was right all along (secretly I think he already thinks I was right after the battering he has received in our debates).

Anyone that expects to still receive a state pension until they're dying day is going to be sadly mistaken (unless they are already quite old). Also anyone with a public sector final salary pension scheme is going to find over the coming years that it is not going to deliver what they were expecting. The money simply isn't there to keep on paying for them. My advice would be to get your mortgage paid off and buy some property and become a landlord like me if you want a secure future.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well I sat down and watched that programme.

Let's put this into context. A deeply right-wing commentator, makes a programme for a company run by a deeply right-wing owner and comes to the conclusion that Labour failed us and only right wing policies can save us. He "proves" the correctness of these conclusions by interviewing commentators such as:

- a Director of the deeply right-wing organisation the Institute for Economic Affairs
- right wing Cabinet Minister David Willetts
- right-wing businesswoman Ros Altmann
- the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility which has got every single major economic prediction (on growth and on deficit) spectacularly wrong since being set-up by the deeply right-wing Gideon Osborne
- the deeply right-wing Matthew Sinclair from the deeply right-wing Taxpayers' Alliance.

And the star turn. Professor Christopher Barnatt, rolled out to give some academic kudos to the whole charade.

Except that he isn't actually a "Professor". He works at Nottingham University and styles himself "Associate Professor" which is an Americanism that UK academia doesn't use. In the UK, we call that position "Lecturer". That's the career grade for solid, dull academics. "Professor" is a title endowed on someone who has been judged by UK and International peers to be a world-leading thinker in his/her area.

"Professor" Barnatt has a written a slack handful of academic papers on cyber-space and has now set himself up as a futurologist. And Randall wheels him in to support his political broadcast.
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/business/LIZCJB.html

Utterly f***ing laughable. 

Anyway, all-in-all, a genius piece of balanced political documentary. I really never expected such a surprising set of ideas from such a balanced bunch of opinion-formers like that. I'd be fascinated to see what conclusion Jeff Randall would come to if he ran a documentary for Vatican TV about contraception and only interviewed Cardinals.

Mick. You DO realise what a dick you make of yourself by posting this nonsense don't you?

PS: For anyone else bothering to read this pointless thread, there is ONE vital issue. THIS is the sort of TV that you end up with when Murdoch rules the airwaves. This is the sort of disgracefully biased bullshit that Fox TV puts out every night in the USA. Thank the Lord up above for the BBC.

[wilts rover]

Haven't seen the programme and no intention of watching it either. The last time this country had no debt, pre WWI, 4% of the population had 90% of the wealth. Some people wish to go back to that situation - other want a more fair and equal society. And as I have written previously, history shows you ignore the social consequences of a draconian economic policy at your peril.

Nationalise housing - thats what I say.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Haven't seen the programme and no intention of watching it either. The last time this country had no debt, pre WWI, 4% of the population had 90% of the wealth. Some people wish to go back to that situation - other want a more fair and equal society. And as I have written previously, history shows you ignore the social consequences of a draconian economic policy at your peril.

Nationalise housing - thats what I say.

Wilts.

Amen to that.

I forgot to say that there was one other person on that farrago of politicised shite. A bloke from the politically neutral Institute for Fiscal Studies, commenting on the catastrophic housing position that we have in this country. I could not agree more with this and not getting house-building going  is by some way the biggest failure of the last Labour Govt (and there were plenty). They carried on a policy that had run since Thatcher's time, which has cemented wealth into the hands of those who already had property, and put that wealth beyond the grasp of those who didn't. Utterly disgraceful.

'Course, under THIS Govt over the last 2 years, the already pitiful level of house-building under Labour which then fell off a cliff in the big collapse in 07-08 have not recovered one jot. We are storing up the Mother of all housing problems by refusing to address this. If Osborne was not such a blinkered ideologue, investing Govt money in kick-starting house-building is THE single bleeding obvious thing to do to address both the housing shortage and the collapse in domestic demand in the economy. And it would also go a long way to preventing a future housing bubble. Absolutely blindingly obvious policy that should have been implemented 5, 10 and 25 years ago, and without question should be implemented now.

[mjdgreg]

I was hoping Billy might see the light but as they say 'you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.' Instead of trying to argue against even one of the many points the documentary made, Billy just says 'it was made by right-wingers therefore it is rubbish.' I'll let the readers decide who is the real dick.

[mjdgreg]

And as I have written previously, history shows you ignore the social consequences of a draconian economic policy at your peril.

Nationalise housing - thats what I say.

Are we to infer from your comments that you think the government are implementing draconian cuts? I wish they were. Nothing could be further from the truth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146571/Cuts-What-cuts-Ignore-BBC-Left-public-spending-HIGHER-Labour.html

Nationalise housing. That's your solution to all our problems. pmsl. There are more than enough houses in this country. The way you and Billy go on you'd think everyone was living under a tree. Did you know there are between 0.75-1million empty houses in England. Why not do something with these first before you start distorting the housing market with more government interference, wasting more money that we haven't got?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick.

You do me a dis-service.

I said that it was just made by right-wingers and a plodding cyber-space lecturer rolled out as an academic authority on the effect of debt.

Since you insist on playing dumb once again, let me be clear about what I actually meant in that previous post.

I meant that this is yet another of the, now countless examples of you scouring round, looking for a scrap of data to support what you already believe, then claiming, "Ta-da! That PROVES I'm right!"

It is deeply childish Mick. It's the sort of thing that gets knocked out of people who have been properly educated. I'm trying to do the job that stopped when you dropped out of the education system at that most crucial turning point - the point where you KNOW that you are really clever, but you haven't yet learned just how little you know and how pitiful are your attempts to put an argument together.

Think of it as a public service, for you and for all the other long-suffering readers on here.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

You do me a dis-service.

I said that it was just made by right-wingers and a plodding cyber-space lecturer rolled out as an academic authority on the effect of debt.

I'll let others decide who is doing the disservice around here. I merely pointed out that the thrust of your 'demolition' of this documentary was to attempt a character assassination of all those responsible for it because they are all 'evil' right-wingers or a lecturer at a top university.

You don't do the adult thing and counter the arguments they made. We all know why. It's because you can't. The scary thing is that the documentary didn't even paint the full picture of the horror story that is unfolding before our very eyes.

The figures they used for our debt are at the very low end of the scale and are fantasy-land from some government accountant trying to make things not seem as bad as they really are. Which is still horrific. The debt is much worse than they are telling us. You want to make it even worse. Unbelievable.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/true-level-of-uk-government-debt-exceeds-%C2%A35-trillion

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Homework for tonight.

Google "Thomas Malthus" + overpopulation.

Give me 500 words in the morning.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS

Yet MORE stuff from the IEA.

You REALLY can't help yourself can you? Have you no comprehension of what you are doing here? It is the equivalent of really, really wanting the Soviet Union to be a success in 1989, and "proving" that your belief is correct by finding articles from the "Institute for Proving that the Soviet Union is A Success" that support your argument.

Come on Mick. You're a clever boy. You can do better than that. But I'll help you on the way.

The IEA was set up by right-wing ideologues in the 1960 to demonstrate that what Britain needed was a good hard right wing slap. They have been preaching Armageddon ever since.

When Britain's economy was weak, it was a right wing slap that was required. When Britain's economy was strong, it was strong enough to survive a right wing slap. They have one solution to every single problem. You surely, SURELY don't think that simply posting a link to another one of their doom-laden articles means that a discussion is entitled do you?

Really Mick?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

Homework for tonight.

Google "Thomas Malthus" + overpopulation.

Give me 500 words in the morning.

No need to. I can assure you that they're aren't many people in this country that are homeless. There are plenty of houses for sale. There are plenty of empty homes. If there was a housing shortage there wouldn't be any houses for sale. Game set and match.

[BillyStubbsTears]

mjdgreg

Homework for tonight.

Google "Thomas Malthus" + overpopulation.

Give me 500 words in the morning.

No need to. I can assure you that they're aren't many people in this country that are homeless. There are plenty of houses for sale. There are plenty of empty homes. If there was a housing shortage there wouldn't be any houses for sale. Game set and match.

2/10 for cheek
0/10 for research

Go and read about what Malthus said about the "inevitable" effects of over population. It had nothing to do with housing whatsoever Mick you cheeky rascal. Nothing at all.

It was a rock solid prediction that the reckless increase in the population in the early 1800s was certain to end in the ruin of the country through mass starvation.

It is a perfect example of the sort of unthinking dross that Randall serves up. It ignores the fact that we can and do develop technical solutions to what seem like insurmountable problems.

Second rate minds in every single generation bemoan the "fact" that we have destroyed our heritage by over consuming (in Malthus's case, the over consumption he criticised was the temerity of working class scum to breed - in Randall's and your case, it is the assumption that debt today inevitably means disaster tomorrow; both are deeply flawed conclusions from second raters)

First rate minds on the other hand, get on with the job of sorting out the technical challenges of providing for the next generation.

And we do it. Every generation. Time after time after time after time.

On that topic Mick, I'm off to a trade fair in Berlin where my company will be looking to sell vast quantities of our world-leading product to eager foreigners and thus do our tiny bit to help the UK get out of the current mess. So you'll forgive me for not having time to answer your witterings for a couple of weeks.

Good luck on the nags.

[mjdgreg]

PS

Yet MORE stuff from the IEA.

You REALLY can't help yourself can you? Have you no comprehension of what you are doing here? It is the equivalent of really, really wanting the Soviet Union to be a success in 1989, and "proving" that your belief is correct by finding articles from the "Institute for Proving that the Soviet Union is A Success" that support your argument.

Come on mjdgreg. You're a clever boy. You can do better than that. But I'll help you on the way.

The IEA was set up by right-wing ideologues in the 1960 to demonstrate that what Britain needed was a good hard right wing slap. They have been preaching Armageddon ever since.

When Britain's economy was weak, it was a right wing slap that was required. When Britain's economy was strong, it was strong enough to survive a right wing slap. They have one solution to every single problem. You surely, SURELY don't think that simply posting a link to another one of their doom-laden articles means that a discussion is entitled do you?

Really mjdgreg?

Again you try to discredit the evidence just by saying the IEA are a right-wing organisation. Not good enough. You believe everything right-wing to be 'evil'. The link I provided shows figures from the government which proves the figures bandied about for our debt are way underestimated. The guy in the link merely states what the other liabilities are to paint the full horrific picture.

You really must stop trying to disprove my views by just simply saying that all the evidence I provide is right-wing so it must be dismissed. Way too simplistic and does you no credit whatsoever. Just for the record just in case anyone is in any doubt I am a right-winger on the very edge of the right-hand side of the wing.

[mjdgreg]

On that topic mjdgreg, I'm off to a trade fair in Berlin where my company will be looking to sell vast quantities of our world-leading product to eager foreigners and thus do our tiny bit to help the UK get out of the current mess caused by Gordon Brown. So you'll forgive me for not having time to answer your witterings for a couple of weeks.

You are forgiven. Respect.

[Dagenham Rover]

On that topic mjdgreg, I'm off to a trade fair in Berlin where my company will be looking to sell vast quantities of our world-leading product to eager foreigners and thus do our tiny bit to help the UK get out of the current mess caused by Gordon Brown. So you'll forgive me for not having time to answer your witterings for a couple of weeks.

You are forgiven. Respect.

Amazing what adding a few little words to the original does isn't it Mick

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick. Parting shot from me.

Come one lad. You always pull this stunt of trying to appear thicker than you really are and it does get rather tiresome.

I'm sure you really know that I'm not dismissing your arguments because you post stuff from a politically-biased right-wing source. I'm dismissing your arguments because you ONLY EVER post things from politically biased right wing sources.

That, Mick, is exactly what I keep banging on about. Your approach is as follows.

1) You make up your mind.
2) You dig out sources who agree with you
3) You claim vindication.

To be honest Mick, I have no interest whatsoever in debating with you. What worries me far more is that you are symptomatic of an age in which we are in danger of losing the clarity of thought that comes with a scientific approach to collating information and making decisions. The scientific method is the single most important development in the history of human thought. As Karl Popper(*) pointed out years ago, it requires you to search around remorselessly for ideas and facts that would DIS-prove what you believe to be true. It is the polar opposite of what you do Mick and the polar opposite of what that otiose little runt Randall did in that programme.

(*) Deeply right wing in his political beliefs by the way, but that doesn't matter. He was a genius of scientific thought who systematically applied the scientific method to his thinking and clarified thought processes for future generations. A true hero of mine.

[mjdgreg]

I'm sure you really know that I'm not dismissing your arguments because you post stuff from a politically-biased right-wing source. I'm dismissing your arguments because you ONLY EVER post things from politically biased right wing sources.

That, mjdgreg, is exactly what I keep banging on about. Your approach is as follows.

1) You make up your mind.
2) You dig out sources who agree with you
3) You claim vindication.

My approach is as follows:

1) I make up my mind after weighing up both sides of the argument.
2) I then don't just say this is what I think, I also provide numerous links and sources to back up what I say. I debate on forums with people such as yourself to see if I've got it right and give you the opportunity to expose any weaknesses in my argument (something you have failed in abysmally).
3) I then let other people know what is going on because in my experience hardly anybody knows or cares about the massive amount of debt that future generations are going to have to try to deal with. All I ask is that we live within our means (something you patently don't believe in) to ease this burden.

This thread is a perfect example of my philosophy. I post a link to a documentary for people to see and make their own minds up about. I am prepared to answer any questions that are thrown at me. You on the other hand don't post any links, or ask any questions, or come up with any counter arguments.

You simply say my views are right-wing and all my information comes from right-wing sources so therefore should be dismissed. I am a right-winger so why do you seem surprised that some of my 'evidence' to back up what I say is from right-wing sources? A lot of my facts and figures come from government statistics as well and the BBC (which is a left leaning organisation).

[River Don]

Malthus is making a comeback BST.

Today right wing financial commentator Ambrose Evans Prichard writing in the Telegraph has aligned himself with lefty Nutters and doom mongers.

It looks like he is convinced wacing genuinely facing a problem with peak oil.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9500667/Peak-cheap-oil-is-an-incontrovertible-fact.html

[bobjimwilly]

My advice would be to get your mortgage paid off and buy some property and become a landlord like me if you want a secure future.

Damn, why didn't I think of that? I'll go to the bank tomorrow and pay of my mortgage and crack on with buying some more property. I'm presuming we buy this second property with cash as well mick, so we don't get into any more debt?
[/sarcasm]

[keepmoatman]

GAME SET AND MATCH  BST
6-0 6-0 6-0
 

[mjdgreg]

Damn, why didn't I think of that? I'll go to the bank tomorrow and pay of my mortgage and crack on with buying some more property. I'm presuming we buy this second property with cash as well mjdgreg, so we don't get into any more debt?

No that's not how you do it. What you do is pay back more on the mortgage than they want you to. Over a period of say 10 years you get it paid off a lot quicker than you would just by sticking to the terms offered when you first take out your mortgage. In my case I got it paid off over 15 years instead of 25. You then use the equity in your house to borrow more money to buy other houses to rent out. What you don't do is spend every penny you earn and borrow more besides. That's exactly what Gordon Brown did and look at the mess he's left behind.

Currently you can buy a house for £50,000 and get £400 per month rent. The mortgage costs less than £200 per month so you are making a decent profit every month. Depending on how much equity you've got you can do this with several houses. You could easily buy 10 houses this way and make over £200 per month profit.

Before you know it you've got over £2000 per month coming in. You then use this profit to start paying off the mortgages. Eventually you end up with 10 houses without a mortgage and an income of £4000 per month. If house prices rise then you make even more money. Is it any wonder that I retired at 50 without a pension and now run my businesses part-time for a bit of fun. Simple really and beats working for a living.

[bobjimwilly]

You truly are an idiot. 

[MrFrost]

Damn, why didn't I think of that? I'll go to the bank tomorrow and pay of my mortgage and crack on with buying some more property. I'm presuming we buy this second property with cash as well mjdgreg, so we don't get into any more debt?

No that's not how you do it. What you do is pay back more on the mortgage than they want you to. Over a period of say 10 years you get it paid off a lot quicker than you would just by sticking to the terms offered when you first take out your mortgage. In my case I got it paid off over 15 years instead of 25. You then use the equity in your house to borrow more money to buy other houses to rent out. What you don't do is spend every penny you earn and borrow more besides. That's exactly what Gordon Brown did and look at the mess he's left behind.

Currently you can buy a house for £50,000 and get £400 per month rent. The mortgage costs less than £200 per month so you are making a decent profit every month. Depending on how much equity you've got you can do this with several houses. You could easily buy 10 houses this way and make over £200 per month profit.

Before you know it you've got over £2000 per month coming in. You then use this profit to start paying off the mortgages. Eventually you end up with 10 houses without a mortgage and an income of £4000 per month. If house prices rise then you make even more money. Is it any wonder that I retired at 50 without a pension and now run my businesses part-time for a bit of fun. Simple really and beats working for a living.

You make it sound so easy.
Try getting a mortgage at all at the moment. I've been trying for a long time.
Out of interest, where are all these houses you own? Remind me never to get you as a landlord.

[mjdgreg]

You make it sound so easy.
Try getting a mortgage at all at the moment. I've been trying for a long time.
Out of interest, where are all these houses you own? Remind me never to get you as a landlord.

It is easy if you've already got a house. I agree it is a lot harder at the moment to get a mortgage than it used to be. My advice was only for people that have already got a house. Until you get one then my advice is not for you.

I own houses in Doncaster and you would be very lucky to have me as a landlord. My tenants all say that I am far and away the best landlord they've ever had. They constantly ask me if I've got any more houses for their friends. When they come back off holiday most of them bring me a gift.

[The L J Monk]

My approach is as follows:

1) I find myself with nothing to do, so I watch a bit of telly
2) When there are no cartoons on, I form a deliberately misleading viewpoint on a topical matter and post it on the VSC forum.
3) I wait for people to attempt to argue with my original, deliberately misleading viewpoint,
4) I then dedicate my time to scouring the internet for obscure articles which I can copy and paste in a failed attempt to undermine any disagreeable posts.
5) I fail to acknowledge the sources of any of these plagiarised articles, claiming them as my own by spouting some nonsense about possessing a photographic memory.
6) I continue this bizarre ritual, sometimes for weeks on end.
6) When a moderator finally has the good sense to lock a topic I have a couple of days off before starting afresh with a new, topical, theme.
7) Throughout this process I continue to battle with a range of personality disorders

This thread is indeed a perfect example of your philosophy.