Capitalist Corruption

[Bombermania]

Nope, housing used to be affordable. That was back before the property market was abused and defiled by bankers and investors. How come the number of 25-34 year olds who own a house has decreased as house prices have increased?

Nope the money from the charity goes to the charity CEO, so the CEO can buy a Mercedes to drive themselves to a golf course... firstly, the administration costs alone are stupid, especially given the government (a responsible one) already has this in place and doesn’t have to duplicate this. Why would a person want to donate to create administration? Secondly, a responsible government should contribute money to everything any charity is attempting to raise money for, education, research, aid, health, environment etc etc.



I’d prefer to work in the 80s and be able to afford housing than be a slave in the 00s.

When it comes to buying a house, the 1980s were not great for the poor, the numbers might have been smaller but to obtain a mortgage was harder and many poor people use to live in boarding houses or rented just as they do today and we had foreign investment in the 1980s property market, we always have had it.

 

[RupieDupie]

When it comes to buying a house, the 1980s were not great for the poor, the numbers might have been smaller but to obtain a mortgage was harder and many poor people use to live in boarding houses or rented just as they do today and we had foreign investment in the 1980s property market, we always have had it.

How about people have a choice of buying a house in the city priced at 1980s median house : median salary vs buying one at today’s market price... I can guarantee you only the world’s biggest dipshits would be buying at today’s market value.

 

[Bombermania]

How about people have a choice of buying a house in the city priced at 1980s median house : median salary vs buying one at today’s market price... I can guarantee you only the world’s biggest dipshits would be buying at today’s market value.

Many inner suburbs were cheap because they were poor, property prices are driven by many factors, sometimes it is demographics, location, infrastructure or spill over from neighboring suburbs, sometimes prices are excessive, sometimes they are not. You really shouldn't compare the 1980s with 2018, the economic conditions and regulatory environment were very different and the 1980s wasn't great for the poor, sure it might have been cheaper to rent but what they were renting was often crappy and they could buy a pack of smokes for less than $2 a packet.

 

[RupieDupie]

Many inner suburbs were cheap because they were poor, property prices are driven by many factors, sometimes it is demographics, location, infrastructure spill over from neighboring suburbs, sometimes prices are excessive, sometimes they are not. You really shouldn't compare the 1980s with 2018, the economic conditions and regulatory environment were very different and the 1980s wasn't great for the poor, sure it might have been cheaper to rent but what they were renting was often crappy and they could buy a pack of smokes for less than $2 a packet.

Now the narrative has changed, now it is poor people this and poor people that, where as I’m talking about people living at median income, you’ll have to work harder to convince yourself that this is true, I’d be much more happier in the ‘80s, when there were much more opportunities for a person willing to work. Yep... I would be living the dream.

 

[Bombermania]

Now the narrative has changed, now it is poor people this and poor people that, where as I’m talking about people living at median income, you’ll have to work harder to convince yourself that this is true, I’d be much more happier in the ‘80s, when there were much more opportunities for a person willing to work. Yep... I would be living the dream.

The 1980s were not that good, and I was there. People on median incomes are able to buy a property and it is easier for them to obtain a mortgage than it was in the 1980s, sure the dollar value of houses was lower and the inner suburbs were cheap. The current falls in property are positive for people wanting to move from renting to buying.

 

[RupieDupie]

Now the narrative has changed, now it is poor people this and poor people that, where as I’m talking about people living at median income, you’ll have to work harder to convince yourself that this is true, I’d be much more happier in the ‘80s, when there were much more opportunities for a person willing to work. Yep... I would be living the dream.

I suppose the biggest shame of all, would be that in a ‘00s society where people could afford housing on median income like they could in the ‘80s, is I wouldn’t have as much time to be talking to my invisible friends on the BigFooty forum.

Yep, I’d be too busy growing alfalfa for the rabbits, “Mr Floppy”, “Mr Bunny”, and “Mr Stinky”, and keeping away ‘dem cats’ from eating up the rabbits.

 

[RupieDupie]

The 1980s were not that good, and I was there. People on median incomes are able to buy a property and it is easier for them to obtain a mortgage than it was in the 1980s, sure the dollar value of houses was lower and the inner suburbs were cheap. The current falls in property are positive for people wanting to move from renting to buying.

Nah, on median income, and a person willing to work, 1980s Australia was their oyster. I’d trade you places if you like?

 

[Bombermania]

I suppose the biggest shame of all, would be that in a ‘00s society where people could afford housing on median income like they could in the ‘80s, is I wouldn’t have as much time to be talking to my invisible friends on the BigFooty forum.

Yep, I’d be too busy growing alfalfa for the rabbits, “Mr Floppy”, “Mr Bunny”, and “Mr Stinky”, and keeping away ‘dem cats’ from eating up the rabbits.

Plenty of people on median incomes have a mortgage today, that means they have been able to demonstrate they can afford it, as I wrote before the only real difference is the dollar amounts are higher, in some cases that can be justified, in some cases its excessive.

 

[Bombermania]

Nah, on median income, and a person willing to work, 1980s Australia was their oyster. I’d trade you places if you like?

If you are only looking at dollar amounts compared to today then it might look better but interest rates were higher, inflation was higher and those dollar amounts were lower being incomes were lower. People on median incomes can still afford to buy, just not necessarily in the inner city or in Sydney, unless they are willing to live in an apartment or a flat.

 

[RupieDupie]

Plenty of people on median incomes have a mortgage today, that means they have been able to demonstrate they can afford it, as I wrote before the only real difference is the dollar amounts are higher, in some cases that can be justified, in some cases its excessive.

Nope,
1) the % of people in the age bracket 25-34 has decreased
2) paying the market value for housing today makes a person a sucker
3) the banks are thieves, demonstrably so

 

[RupieDupie]

If you are only looking at dollar amounts compared to today then it might look better but interest rates were higher, inflation was higher and those dollar amounts were lower being incomes were lower. People on median incomes can still afford to buy, just not necessarily in the inner city or in Sydney, unless they are willing to live in an apartment or a flat.

I would 100% prefer to have bought a house including loan in 1980 at median income, even including the 18% interest rates (at times in the 1980s) compared to the prices and median income now, including interest rates at 4%. The former is a bargain in comparison. Do the math, you’ll find I’m right...

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Fancy someone from Fox News with a moral conscience. Wonders never cease. Perhaps she realises the day of reckoning for capitalism as it is today is coming. Still, grubby Rupe will be ropeable.

Thursday night on Fox News, Laura Ingraham straightforwardly expressed the key challenge for capitalism: How can bosses get people to do awful, degrading jobs for little pay in order to make other people rich?

Laura Ingraham Confronts the Core Problem for Capitalists

And workers should thank her for that.

theintercept.com

 

[Seeds]

Fancy someone from Fox News with a moral conscience. Wonders never cease. Perhaps she realises the day of reckoning for capitalism as it is today is coming. Still, grubby Rupe will be ropeable.

Laura Ingraham Confronts the Core Problem for Capitalists

And workers should thank her for that.

theintercept.com

i Despise fox. but that’s a terrible article which addresses none of the problems of paying a large portion of the population money to do nothing. It doesn’t even mention inflation Let alone try to make a point as to why it wouldn’t sky rocket this time reducing the value of everyone’s wage and leading to mass shortages. It just ignores it.

governments have tried removing incentives to work before. Guaranteeing everyone a certain standard of living. And they have led to some of the worlds greatest famines.

 

[Present Not Past]

Fancy someone from Fox News with a moral conscience. Wonders never cease. Perhaps she realises the day of reckoning for capitalism as it is today is coming. Still, grubby Rupe will be ropeable.

Laura Ingraham Confronts the Core Problem for Capitalists

And workers should thank her for that.

theintercept.com

Rupert has shown, if nothing else, how flexible he can be.
You can be sure that when the day comes that the capitalist system collapses he’ll be running stories exposing the worst offenders and cosying up to the new regime. To him, it’s just business.

 

[Herzog]

Rupert has shown, if nothing else, how flexible he can be.
You can be sure that when the day comes that the capitalist system collapses he’ll be running stories exposing the worst offenders and cosying up to the new regime. To him, it’s just business.

This is going to happen in Rupe's lifetime?

 

[Pie eyed]

When it comes to buying a house, the 1980s were not great for the poor, the numbers might have been smaller but to obtain a mortgage was harder and many poor people use to live in boarding houses or rented just as they do today and we had foreign investment in the 1980s property market, we always have had it.

The last time housing was affordable, because it was geared to a single income family, was the 1960's, very early 70's.
As soon as women went into the workforce the Liberal Governments and the banks wanted their cut and took it.
Next in line were the parasites in the Real Estate industry.
Then State and Local Government.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Greed and keeping the poor, poor is the centrepiece of capitalism. Yet workers and those who benefit the least vote for them. Go figure.

Richest 1% takes 38% of global wealth while bottom half gets 2% - Pearls and Irritations

Global inequities in wealth and income are as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century. Since 1995, members of the global 1 per cent have captured 38 per cent of all new wealth while the poorest half of humanity has benefited from just 2 per cent...

johnmenadue.com

 

[Seeds]

Greed and keeping the poor, poor is the centrepiece of capitalism. Yet workers and those who benefit the least vote for them. Go figure.

Richest 1% takes 38% of global wealth while bottom half gets 2% - Pearls and Irritations

Global inequities in wealth and income are as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century. Since 1995, members of the global 1 per cent have captured 38 per cent of all new wealth while the poorest half of humanity has benefited from just 2 per cent...

johnmenadue.com

Poor is the centrepiece of socialism. Everyone is poor in socialism. equality for all.


capitalism is unequal. Some are poor. Some are rich. and an awful lot are middleclass.


and there is nothing wrong with greed. The absense of greed is insanity.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

Poor is the centrepiece of socialism. Everyone is poor in socialism. equality for all.


capitalism is unequal. Some are poor. Some are rich. and an awful lot are middleclass.


and there is nothing wrong with greed. The absense of greed is insanity.

What arrant nonsense.

 

[Power Raid]

Greed and keeping the poor, poor is the centrepiece of capitalism. Yet workers and those who benefit the least vote for them. Go figure.

Richest 1% takes 38% of global wealth while bottom half gets 2% - Pearls and Irritations

Global inequities in wealth and income are as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century. Since 1995, members of the global 1 per cent have captured 38 per cent of all new wealth while the poorest half of humanity has benefited from just 2 per cent...

johnmenadue.com

and yet so many are adverse to wealth taxes, property taxes and increasing the GST

 

[CM86]

Greed and keeping the poor, poor is the centrepiece of capitalism. Yet workers and those who benefit the least vote for them. Go figure.

Richest 1% takes 38% of global wealth while bottom half gets 2% - Pearls and Irritations

Global inequities in wealth and income are as great today as they were at the peak of Western imperialism in the early 20th century. Since 1995, members of the global 1 per cent have captured 38 per cent of all new wealth while the poorest half of humanity has benefited from just 2 per cent...

johnmenadue.com

Thanks, good article.
Responses have been kind of ridiculous.

 

[The Passenger]

I think the problem is not so much capitalism, but rather hyper-capitalism... But where that line blurs is far from clear and also changes from person to person, even those who are pro-capitalist.

There is a vastly difference ideology between the 1960's version of capitalism and the 2000's version, the latter of which was rebuked and subsequently receded a little bit due to the GFC but certainly does feel like it's back on the rise in the last few years.

 

[Power Raid]

I think the problem is not so much capitalism, but rather hyper-capitalism... But where that line blurs is far from clear and also changes from person to person, even those who are pro-capitalist.

There is a vastly difference ideology between the 1960's version of capitalism and the 2000's version, the latter of which was rebuked and subsequently receded a little bit due to the GFC but certainly does feel like it's back on the rise in the last few years.

I would suggest capitalism works best with regulation which comes in many forms including anti-competition, standards in terms of products and employment. In most places we have a reasonable balance but areas where "popularity" won't allow democratic governments to act or act fast enough is an area where democracy fails the regulation of capitalism. We see this with alcohol. tobacco, junk food, child care, health services, aged care, the business of church/ religion etc etc.

We're also seeing a major financial war between the super powers of the EU, US and China distorting capitalism. This is so great, it rivals and possibly surpasses the 1960s in terms of impact. The difference between now and the 1960s is the reduced involvement by State Owned Enterprises here in the West. Personally I think that's a good thing as government reduces it's ability to govern, regulate and hold industry accountable if they are both industry and government.

What is undeniable though is unbridled capitalism fails and so to socialism. A healthy balance where the pendulum swings to respond to needs is necessary for a healthy economy and society.

 

[bfff]

I would suggest capitalism works best with regulation which comes in many forms including anti-competition, standards in terms of products and employment. In most places we have a reasonable balance but areas where "popularity" won't allow democratic governments to act or act fast enough is an area where democracy fails the regulation of capitalism. We see this with alcohol. tobacco, junk food, child care, health services, aged care, the business of church/ religion etc etc.

Capitalism always perverts democracy. It is in the nature of capital to avoid regulation and take control of government. Who has the ultimate power in a capitalist society? It is a flaw of capitalism that it needs to be regulated in order to do what is “right”. A capitalist democracy is democratic in name only.

 

[Power Raid]

Capitalism always perverts democracy. It is in the nature of capital to avoid regulation and take control of government. Who has the ultimate power in a capitalist society? It is a flaw of capitalism that it needs to be regulated in order to do what is “right”. A capitalist democracy is democratic in name only.

we see democracy perverted by many influences be it the church, the % of people who smoke, unions, NRA and large businesses.

For me, many large businesses do not act in the interest of democracy or even their consumers. Take McDonalds and the tie up with Coca Cola both pushing salt, sugar and fat to get their customers addicted at an early age. Then good luck to government to address the issue with so many peasants turning up every day to get their fix and even introduce their kids to the s**t.

but who is to blame? definitely coke and maccas but just as much blame lands with the customers and their representation in the electorate