Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:52 pm  

Standee wrote:

Those people should accept the fact they do not have the income to own the TV, and not have a facility to buy.

You've kind of missed his point there. Money that goes to support benefits claimants and those pesky immigrants is a drop in the ocean compared to what big companies avoid paying in tax.

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:09 pm  

Standee wrote:

ask a question not based on dogma and I will reply, YOU are part of the problem.

How?
You seem to be able to tell me about my life and what I do.
The trouble is you don't have a clue about my life in any way whatsoever yet you claim I am part of the problem!
So!!
WHAT PROBLEM?

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:15 pm  

Standee wrote:

Those people should accept the fact they do not have the income to own the TV, and not have a facility to buy.

The point being that in 2008 a calamitous collapse in the world banking system had exactly the same cause and effect as you are suggesting, someone turned off the tap and the world stopped spending money and the world decreed that this was a bad thing and countries all over the world started printing more of their own money and throwing it at banks urging them to lend again, for the truth was, every capitalist system exists purely on easy credit, turn the tap off and the world stops turning.

Take solace in the fact that the VERY poor in society, the ones who draw benefits and are ACTUALLY UNEMPLOYED are in the minority but are so poor that they can't afford accountants to hide their money and instead they have to spend it all in the UK because they can't afford to go abroad, and in doing so, we all get that money back one way or another.

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:23 pm  

I remember the Yellow savings books in infant school with the larger black TSB that it got transferred into, a proper adults bank book it was a similar thing I encouraged my own son to do..he bought his first car/paid for half his lessons with the money he saved (which was over a long period of time not me being overly generous)

I've borrowed twice in my life..first was when I needed a car to get to my new job in London in my early 20s because the trains were too expensive (& didn't get me directly to where I needed to be in any case) & then I was lucky enough to buy my own house with a mortgage..
Aside from that I have not, nor will ever buy something unless I have the money for it. If I don't have the money I won't/can't buy it, that's just life. the same principle should apply to everyone..not just those on lower incomes

There are ALWAYS ways to save money, there are ALWAYS ways to live more frugally without 'missing out', why is it people think that they can just go out and get things when they know full well that they can't afford it nor have any intention of paying it back which is theft/fraud.

Vast swathes of people think society owes them, that they are entitled to have X, Y & Z. They don't 'need' these items..it is a want.
I even showed some time back (either here on on the cycling forum I frequent..I forget which) how it is possible to work full time on minimum wage and not just survive but have a life. Not a luxurious life admittedly but still be able to put money away and live 'comfortably'. That is with food on the table and a roof over your head and not worrying about letters coming through your door threatening court because you defaulted on your borrowings.
It reminds me of exactly this time in 2006, I went to a village in W.Yorks, actually on the way up from Hertfordshire to the GF to buy some bicycle wheels (kill 2 birds with one stone). The guys place was small, it was pretty untidy I suppose but surprisingly the chap felt the need to apologise for his abode for some reason. I come from a humble working class background and I'll always be working class despite my postcode & how things turned out. This guy worked, he had his place and ATEOTD he is a human being trying to make his way in life. It was obvious he didn't have much money but we chatted about bikes and his work..I have respect for people like him, in his late 50s, probably never had too many opportunities, probably left school young but he had a job and a roof and seemed happy if not too humble..

Conversely, I have an association with people whom follow their mother and are popping kids out so they can pay for their lifestyle, it's frankly sickening. State benefits are too much of an incentive in some cases though rightly are required/needed in many other facets of a civilised society. Sadly our state system is so furked up it isn't true and is open to abuse left right & centre..

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:37 pm  

Standee wrote:

Those people should accept the fact they do not have the income to own the TV, and not have a facility to buy.

When do you suggest we start evicting everyone with a mortgage?

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:57 pm  

He's a landlord ain't he?
He'd be happy, he could put his rents up ...lol

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:03 am  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Conversely, I have an association with people whom follow their mother and are popping kids out so they can pay for their lifestyle, it's frankly sickening. State benefits are too much of an incentive in some cases though rightly are required/needed in many other facets of a civilised society. Sadly our state system is so furked up it isn't true and is open to abuse left right & centre..

This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible.

I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements.

Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane.

The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:13 am  

cod'ead wrote: This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible. I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements. Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane. The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits? Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children." http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

cod'ead wrote: This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible. I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements. Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane. The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits? Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children." http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:17 am  

cod'ead wrote:

The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted

They must exist or they wouldn't quote them ?

What is needed at the moment is an honesty in politics, yes I know its a novel idea and it will never catch on and the politicians wouldn't understand the concept if you slapped them around the face until they did understand, so what is really needed is a news media who will ask the awkward questions until they get an answer, Paxman was a good start but they grew wise to him and he didn't have the unlimited time to his programmes that would sometimes be required to extract the truth.

So for instance when the much re-quoted lie (outright lie) of "three generation families who have never worked" was doing the rounds via the IDS department of dogma, the eponymous head of that department should have been interviewed live in a studio with the one question requiring an answer - "How many families are we talking about ?", asked and re-asked until he could provide a list of names (the department would have a list of names, after all they pay the money out), or he admitted that it was a falsehood and a lie, if it took all night to get to that point then so be it rather than have the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have to do the research weeks later and find that no such families exist - long after the lie has become factual in the media.

Likewise numbers need to be quoted, they have the statistics and politicians should not go unchallenged when they spout headline phrases about workshy feckless families as if they exist in every second household in every street in the country, numbers, just tell us how many we are talking about here and then we can all decide using our own adult brains whether or not you are looking for scapegoats.

I'll put myself forward for that interviewers job if you like?

Re: Wonga and moral hazard? : Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:54 pm  

The idea that borrowers don't, if not force, then psychologically compel people to take loans is about as untrue as the notion that advertising doesn't affect people at a subconscious level thus affecting their decision-making capability.

And before anyone replies with the usual "advertising doesn't affect me in any way" nonsense - try erasing the McDonalds logo from your memory.

I've never liked the American term "Brain Washing" not least because it is a rather clumsy and archaic abstraction which was hastily pounced upon by the media in the wake of some alarming studies undertaken by the US military in the wake of the Korean war.

A far better phrase has been commonly used by the Chinese to describe very real and twice as disturbing effects on the human mind brought about by a variety of methods (some of which, admittedly, weren't strictly ethical) - "Thought Reform".

As an aside, I recently read a couple of well researched books that were based on recently declassified CIA files relating to Project Artichoke (which subsequently came under the rubric of MK-ULTRA).

For years people have laughed off the notion that a person's entire personality can be overwritten and/or augmented (undetected by even the person himself) through the delivery of various stimuli thus creating a "Manchurian Candidate". Whilst it is true that the initial evidence for such (American POWs returning from the Korean war) was ultimately proved bogus - it is patently clear even from redacted documents that the CIA not only believed it was possible in the 1960s - they'd actually tested the theory successfully in a variety of field studies. This news was so politically explosive that when the House Select Committee on Assassinations convened during the 70s, the then CIA director, Richard Helms, burned almost all of his notes.

The above is certainly an extreme example of psychological conditioning and the techniques of implementation are far in excess of anything used in advertising. But the MK-ULTRA scientists ultimately discovered that human beings simply didn't require heavy doses of psychoactive drugs, long periods of isolation etc. anyway for significant behaviour modification. Which is precisely what Edward Bernays and his "public relations" acolytes had been telling them for years.

Indeed, the application of simple operant conditioning turned the 70-95% of American servicemen who found it difficult to impossible to fire their weapons at a distance of 30 feet from the enemy in WWII into the ruthless killers of today who fire without thought to the consequences.

The truth is - human beings are a lot easier to control than any of us dare think.