Do Rich People do the Lottery ?
26 September 2010, 09:50 AM
#62
What I am saying the banks gambling crashed the economy that world wide was built on didly squat assets,money was not there in the first place all on paper.My old man told me a story,in the war times were tough a local guy bought and sold tin food made a lot of money,one day a guy collared him and said the tins of spam I bought from you was off,the reply was"the spam was for buying and selling not for eating you fool"
26 September 2010, 11:02 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
No it doesn't help really.
The question was not what do you believe a person needs to live like a millionaire. Pimmo wanted to know if there were any millionaires on here, and I wondered if there is a generally accepted definition of this term (as opposed to high net worth individual etc)
Your answer also doesn't address the issue of income.
26 September 2010, 12:02 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being rich is like a disease I think.
All the really rich people I have known, even those who have so much that they couldn't spend it in their remaining life span, cannot resist trying to make more and more money and also that they are usually tighter than a fish's tit!
Les
All the really rich people I have known, even those who have so much that they couldn't spend it in their remaining life span, cannot resist trying to make more and more money and also that they are usually tighter than a fish's tit!
Les
26 September 2010, 12:13 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it doesn't help really.
The question was not what do you believe a person needs to live like a millionaire. Pimmo wanted to know if there were any millionaires on here, and I wondered if there is a generally accepted definition of this term (as opposed to high net worth individual etc)
Your answer also doesn't address the issue of income.
The question was not what do you believe a person needs to live like a millionaire. Pimmo wanted to know if there were any millionaires on here, and I wondered if there is a generally accepted definition of this term (as opposed to high net worth individual etc)
Your answer also doesn't address the issue of income.
26 September 2010, 12:16 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being rich is like a disease I think.
All the really rich people I have known, even those who have so much that they couldn't spend it in their remaining life span, cannot resist trying to make more and more money and also that they are usually tighter than a fish's tit!
Les
All the really rich people I have known, even those who have so much that they couldn't spend it in their remaining life span, cannot resist trying to make more and more money and also that they are usually tighter than a fish's tit!
Les
26 September 2010, 12:44 PM
#67
I have respect for the people who have worked and earned their wealth paid their taxes,I have a friend who is a worth millions in property lives on his own in a damp bungalow to mean to put the heating on still does the lotto for a larf his jolly is watching tv thro freeview box waiting for results on Sat night while eating Tesco £1 dinners,gosh how the other half live
26 September 2010, 12:45 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite what I meant but you are probably right.
It always seems to me that bankers get affected purely because they are dealing in money. I think it has an effect on them.
Les
It always seems to me that bankers get affected purely because they are dealing in money. I think it has an effect on them.
Les
26 September 2010, 02:02 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is a HUGE generalisation. There are a significant majority of bankers who are very prudent and feel a deep sense of responsibility for other peoples money. Yes there were some bad apples, but there is still a valuable orchard out there.
Trout
26 September 2010, 02:12 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I am saying the banks gambling crashed the economy that world wide was built on didly squat assets,money was not there in the first place all on paper.My old man told me a story,in the war times were tough a local guy bought and sold tin food made a lot of money,one day a guy collared him and said the tins of spam I bought from you was off,the reply was"the spam was for buying and selling not for eating you fool"
The banks were part of a system that was rotting all the way through. They were merely supporting the insatiable appetite for credit and cash.
Of course you may be an unlucky victim that had a vulnerable business and you had no debt or loans, no credit cards and a minimal or no mortgage. In other words, financially resilient.
The problem is that there were too many people with debt in their home and their businesses that found it too easy to point the blame solely at the banks when the credit dried up. And the very same people were all part of the problem, alongside the banks and alongside the financial system.
When your personal financial situation becomes dependent on a third party then you are always exposed to risk.
26 September 2010, 02:27 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The banks were not acting alone here - for every 'dealer' there were hundreds of thousands of willing customers (addicts!).
The banks were part of a system that was rotting all the way through. They were merely supporting the insatiable appetite for credit and cash.
Of course you may be an unlucky victim that had a vulnerable business and you had no debt or loans, no credit cards and a minimal or no mortgage. In other words, financially resilient.
The problem is that there were too many people with debt in their home and their businesses that found it too easy to point the blame solely at the banks when the credit dried up. And the very same people were all part of the problem, alongside the banks and alongside the financial system.
When your personal financial situation becomes dependent on a third party then you are always exposed to risk.
The banks were part of a system that was rotting all the way through. They were merely supporting the insatiable appetite for credit and cash.
Of course you may be an unlucky victim that had a vulnerable business and you had no debt or loans, no credit cards and a minimal or no mortgage. In other words, financially resilient.
The problem is that there were too many people with debt in their home and their businesses that found it too easy to point the blame solely at the banks when the credit dried up. And the very same people were all part of the problem, alongside the banks and alongside the financial system.
When your personal financial situation becomes dependent on a third party then you are always exposed to risk.
OTOH the banking elites are looking useless as far as elites go and are able to leverage the state to retain their economic position, plus have the lower classes by a kind of blackmail in that if the banking system fails...we all fail - that can't be good. That is a corruption of sorts.
26 September 2010, 02:40 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be the end result but that is not how the banking system evolved. The ability of a licensed bank to leverage credit is probably even more important than the industrial revolution in changing the nature of the world. Banking was the engine behind economic growth in the Western world between the 1780s and now. Before banking as we know it existed such growth was not possible.
And I (amongst many others) can assure you that if RBS, AIG, HBoS and others had failed we would be in MUCH worse trouble now than you can possibly imagine.
And I (amongst many others) can assure you that if RBS, AIG, HBoS and others had failed we would be in MUCH worse trouble now than you can possibly imagine.
26 September 2010, 02:44 PM
#73
Trout, banks should pay for their mistakes after they f&cked up, and not have free money from governments without being nationalised.
The government prefers to rob its people instead to keep pouring money to the banks.
The only exception to this is Viktor Orban, hats off to him for supporting his own nation and refusing to do what was told by the IMF and EU.
Greece should do the same but its politicians are puppets.
The government prefers to rob its people instead to keep pouring money to the banks.
The only exception to this is Viktor Orban, hats off to him for supporting his own nation and refusing to do what was told by the IMF and EU.
Greece should do the same but its politicians are puppets.
26 September 2010, 02:44 PM
#74
Trout, banks should pay for their mistakes after they f&cked up, and not have free money from governments without being nationalised.
The government prefers to rob its people instead to keep pouring money to the banks.
The only exception to this is Viktor Orban, hats off to him for supporting his own nation and refusing to do what was told by the IMF and EU.
Greece should do the same but its politicians are muppets.
The government prefers to rob its people instead to keep pouring money to the banks.
The only exception to this is Viktor Orban, hats off to him for supporting his own nation and refusing to do what was told by the IMF and EU.
Greece should do the same but its politicians are muppets.
26 September 2010, 02:53 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
whether the rich do the lottery is a mute point - they certainly appreciate it, as the lottery is a fantastic way of redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich (and from the stupid to the less so)
it is essentially a tax on the poor and stupid
it is essentially a tax on the poor and stupid
26 September 2010, 03:03 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trout, banks should pay for their mistakes after they f&cked up, and not have free money from governments without being nationalised.
The government prefers to rob its people instead to keep pouring money to the banks.
The only exception to this is Viktor Orban, hats off to him for supporting his own nation and refusing to do what was told by the IMF and EU.
Greece should do the same but its politicians are puppets.
The government prefers to rob its people instead to keep pouring money to the banks.
The only exception to this is Viktor Orban, hats off to him for supporting his own nation and refusing to do what was told by the IMF and EU.
Greece should do the same but its politicians are puppets.
26 September 2010, 04:15 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
You've been working for 41 years and never saved up a nest egg to see you through difficult times?
26 September 2010, 04:47 PM
#78
Trying to bring up 6 daughter,gave my ex wife my first house for them to live in,2nd wife spends every penny and far more,my investments are worth sod all,no work,but I am still fit have my house,have my dog,have my Scooby,kids speak when they need something,but there is light at the end of the tunnel,wife has told me she is leaving so not all bad!!
26 September 2010, 05:04 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be the end result but that is not how the banking system evolved. The ability of a licensed bank to leverage credit is probably even more important than the industrial revolution in changing the nature of the world. Banking was the engine behind economic growth in the Western world between the 1780s and now. Before banking as we know it existed such growth was not possible.
And I (amongst many others) can assure you that if RBS, AIG, HBoS and others had failed we would be in MUCH worse trouble now than you can possibly imagine.
And I (amongst many others) can assure you that if RBS, AIG, HBoS and others had failed we would be in MUCH worse trouble now than you can possibly imagine.
I mean the Romans had banks who could lend money, the thing about having an Industrial revolution was there was more to spend said credit on. In an agricultural economy what can you buy on credit? Land is essentially inherited. Capitalism frees things up, it's more mobile.
Modern banking arose to fund the royal navy. Banking just provides an enabling function to the REAL economy allocating credit to deserving projects (in theory). OTOH banking is unsustainable since a society of bankers produces nothing but debt, and when you have fractional reserve banking and a fiat currency the money supply can grow and grow, especially as all money is debt money and requires the creation of more debt to service it. Sooner or later something has to give as debt money grows and the banking class expands.
I'm not sure what the answer is but I am very mistrustful of having a fiat currency, and I see where the American FF's were coming from in this regard, as it seems to impinge upon liberty in the final analysis, as the masses become debt slaves to a banking class. It also gives the government too much power since they can debase the currency at will.
It's interesting that as the Roman Empire neared its end they started using a fiat currency and used less and less gold in the coins.
26 September 2010, 05:13 PM
#80
Not sure I agree with that. Are you a Banker?
I mean the Romans had banks who could lend money, the thing about having an Industrial revolution was there was more to spend said credit on. In an agricultural economy what can you buy on credit? Land is essentially inherited. Capitalism frees things up, it's more mobile.
Modern banking arose to fund the royal navy. Banking just provides an enabling function to the REAL economy allocating credit to deserving projects (in theory). OTOH banking is unsustainable since a society of bankers produces nothing but debt, and when you have fractional reserve banking and a fiat currency the money supply can grow and grow, especially as all money is debt money and requires the creation of more debt to service it. Sooner or later something has to give as debt money grows and the banking class expands.
I'm not sure what the answer is but I am very mistrustful of having a fiat currency, and I see where the American FF's were coming from in this regard, as it seems to impinge upon liberty in the final analysis, as the masses become debt slaves to a banking class. It also gives the government too much power since they can debase the currency at will.
It's interesting that as the Roman Empire neared its end they started using a fiat currency and used less and less gold in the coins.
I mean the Romans had banks who could lend money, the thing about having an Industrial revolution was there was more to spend said credit on. In an agricultural economy what can you buy on credit? Land is essentially inherited. Capitalism frees things up, it's more mobile.
Modern banking arose to fund the royal navy. Banking just provides an enabling function to the REAL economy allocating credit to deserving projects (in theory). OTOH banking is unsustainable since a society of bankers produces nothing but debt, and when you have fractional reserve banking and a fiat currency the money supply can grow and grow, especially as all money is debt money and requires the creation of more debt to service it. Sooner or later something has to give as debt money grows and the banking class expands.
I'm not sure what the answer is but I am very mistrustful of having a fiat currency, and I see where the American FF's were coming from in this regard, as it seems to impinge upon liberty in the final analysis, as the masses become debt slaves to a banking class. It also gives the government too much power since they can debase the currency at will.
It's interesting that as the Roman Empire neared its end they started using a fiat currency and used less and less gold in the coins.
26 September 2010, 05:21 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Romans did have money lenders but that is not really banking it was money lending. Banking as we know is fractional reserve banking as you describe. Without it there would be no capitalism.
The origin of fractional reserve banking occurs in a number of places in Europe, with a number of false starts.
The ability of fractional reserve banking to expand money supply was crucial to fund the industrial revolution - although as you say it was developed to fund wars. The Medici were testing these ideas far earlier than we were to fund the Royal Navy.
The best example of the inability for a fully reserved currency to support economic growth is in Spain where they were entirely dependent on gold being dug out of the ground in South America. This led to constant devaluation of the currency whilst at the same time had an ironically limited supply of money due to it being tied to physical gold.
The other great development to support capitalism was the creation of stock markets and tradeable instruments. Again a number of false starts and bubbles but over time the ability to free money supply and the ability to get investment return through growth in stock values created the markets we have today.
The most recent blip was taking these two capabilities to the nth degree. Fraction reserve without enough underlying real assets and leveraged tradeable instruments in CDOs and CDSs.
But all of these were created by an uncontrolled and swelling need for consumers to borrow money that was poorly regulated. There are very few in this who did not get their hands dirty!
The origin of fractional reserve banking occurs in a number of places in Europe, with a number of false starts.
The ability of fractional reserve banking to expand money supply was crucial to fund the industrial revolution - although as you say it was developed to fund wars. The Medici were testing these ideas far earlier than we were to fund the Royal Navy.
The best example of the inability for a fully reserved currency to support economic growth is in Spain where they were entirely dependent on gold being dug out of the ground in South America. This led to constant devaluation of the currency whilst at the same time had an ironically limited supply of money due to it being tied to physical gold.
The other great development to support capitalism was the creation of stock markets and tradeable instruments. Again a number of false starts and bubbles but over time the ability to free money supply and the ability to get investment return through growth in stock values created the markets we have today.
The most recent blip was taking these two capabilities to the nth degree. Fraction reserve without enough underlying real assets and leveraged tradeable instruments in CDOs and CDSs.
But all of these were created by an uncontrolled and swelling need for consumers to borrow money that was poorly regulated. There are very few in this who did not get their hands dirty!
26 September 2010, 05:21 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
26 September 2010, 05:53 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Which ones?
Just out of interest, what sort of 'much worse' situation would we be in right now if the banks had been allowed to fail? What about the consequences of bailing them out? Obviously they aren't seen now, everyone is just happy to still have their money, but what about years down the line? I don't think it's as simple as mainstream economics would have us believe.
Obviously there has been a great amount of growth and benefit from these fiat currencies and I'm not into conspiracy theories generally, but you have to look at how recently we have gone onto a pure fiat money system. I really think that, given a few years, this system will be in serious trouble - the dollar will probably kick it off seeing as this is what it's all based on.
Just out of interest, what sort of 'much worse' situation would we be in right now if the banks had been allowed to fail? What about the consequences of bailing them out? Obviously they aren't seen now, everyone is just happy to still have their money, but what about years down the line? I don't think it's as simple as mainstream economics would have us believe.
Obviously there has been a great amount of growth and benefit from these fiat currencies and I'm not into conspiracy theories generally, but you have to look at how recently we have gone onto a pure fiat money system. I really think that, given a few years, this system will be in serious trouble - the dollar will probably kick it off seeing as this is what it's all based on.
26 September 2010, 06:06 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was the development of bonds that enabled Governments, including ours, to fund services such as the Royal Navy. It was not the development of fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking was not 'invented' to support the Royal Navy.
The implication of it being linked to the Royal Navy implies that this was an English development. Whilst there were certainly Brits at the early stages of the development of banking they were operating in Italy and France on their early experiments. I am sure the Medici might contend that they made a significant contribution to modern banking constructs.
As for allowing the banks to fail - are you joking when you ask that?
Just for one moment imagine our two key hospital pass banks, HBoS and RBS. HBoS covers the mortgages for one in four houses in the UK, HBoS finances countless small businesses, RBS finances many corporations and ventures such as sports clubs.
Also over 20million people have deposits there.
So on the one hand all the debt is called in and on the other everyone wants their deposits out - which in a fractional system is effectively impossible.
Not to count the massive commitments, that whilst technical, covered literally trillions of pounds of intruments in the financial markets. On a mark to market basis these would have zero value if the banks had gone under. So countless other institutions would have taken big hits in their balance sheets and also be under threat.
And so the dominoes would fall across the market.
By comparison the actual financial support provided was a drop in the ocean compared to the financial impact.
Fractional reserve banking was not 'invented' to support the Royal Navy.
The implication of it being linked to the Royal Navy implies that this was an English development. Whilst there were certainly Brits at the early stages of the development of banking they were operating in Italy and France on their early experiments. I am sure the Medici might contend that they made a significant contribution to modern banking constructs.
As for allowing the banks to fail - are you joking when you ask that?
Just for one moment imagine our two key hospital pass banks, HBoS and RBS. HBoS covers the mortgages for one in four houses in the UK, HBoS finances countless small businesses, RBS finances many corporations and ventures such as sports clubs.
Also over 20million people have deposits there.
So on the one hand all the debt is called in and on the other everyone wants their deposits out - which in a fractional system is effectively impossible.
Not to count the massive commitments, that whilst technical, covered literally trillions of pounds of intruments in the financial markets. On a mark to market basis these would have zero value if the banks had gone under. So countless other institutions would have taken big hits in their balance sheets and also be under threat.
And so the dominoes would fall across the market.
By comparison the actual financial support provided was a drop in the ocean compared to the financial impact.
26 September 2010, 06:16 PM
#89
I personally am not bothered about being rich, a bit more wouldnt go amiss but we have a house that is paid for, I have a decent job and three healthy kids, me and the missus get on most of the time so I have a lot to be thankful for.
Sometimes the lottery upsets the apple cart for some people, life is a bit of a game, if you have been dealt a decent hand as I beleive I have then it wont make life that much better, maybe some flashier "stuff" but I dont really want for anything materially, ok some nice cars and nice holidays but I wouldnt want to completely change my life as I enjoy it most of the time, even work, cycling to work, doing stuff myself, couple of hundred grand win would be best for me.
Sometimes the lottery upsets the apple cart for some people, life is a bit of a game, if you have been dealt a decent hand as I beleive I have then it wont make life that much better, maybe some flashier "stuff" but I dont really want for anything materially, ok some nice cars and nice holidays but I wouldnt want to completely change my life as I enjoy it most of the time, even work, cycling to work, doing stuff myself, couple of hundred grand win would be best for me.
26 September 2010, 06:32 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
you only pose that question because you have a lot to lose from the collapse of the status quo -- you have property, cash, and other assets.
So are intrinsically linked to the current financial system and do very well out of it.
but imagine if you do not do so well out of this modern form of capitalism (for whatever reason), or indeed opt out altogether like a traveller/gypsy – no bank account, no reliance on banking or any financial product, used to dealing in cash etc etc --- what’s the real problem with letting it all collapse --- isn’t that the very crux of capitalism – the moral hazard of speculation – the idea that crap business’s go to the wall – the best survive, thus moving things on and improving things
step outside your box Trout
So are intrinsically linked to the current financial system and do very well out of it.
but imagine if you do not do so well out of this modern form of capitalism (for whatever reason), or indeed opt out altogether like a traveller/gypsy – no bank account, no reliance on banking or any financial product, used to dealing in cash etc etc --- what’s the real problem with letting it all collapse --- isn’t that the very crux of capitalism – the moral hazard of speculation – the idea that crap business’s go to the wall – the best survive, thus moving things on and improving things
step outside your box Trout