wake_up_bomb wrote:
People use loans to by nice homes & cars or travel around the world ect...

You know, some of the things a debt free person living in a shack might wish they had to raise their quality of life.

People use loans to by nice homes & cars or travel around the world ect...

You know, some of the things a debt free person living in a shack might wish they had to raise their quality of life.

.......... wrote: As I say, there are loans in the third world, the entire economic position of the third world is dictated by debt.

Would cars and homes exist without loans?

Mike wrote:
It's an analogy to the overall picture. I'm not sure what it is you don't see about it. Borrowing loads of money - growth - money wanted back - banking collapse - austerity - selling off family jewels - work harder - high cost of living - borrowing loads of money.
Also the fact that banks are able to just print money based upon the signature of the creditor/debtor where only the signature is the lawful consideration. ie. mortgages. Then those mortgage notes are re-sold. If that's not taking the fucking piss, I don't know what is?

Space Bandit wrote:
Explain this to people in 3rd world poverty who live without loans, homes, debt, cars and other luxuries.

.......... wrote: As I say, there are loans in the third world, the entire economic position of the third world is dictated by debt.

Would cars and homes exist without loans?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
lol hilarious innit

Christ I've no debt but I don't like in a shack ffs lol.

Space Bandit wrote: Just tell me what you're trying to explain by your allegory, and this dialectical procession above, as it stands your simplification of things doesn't really serve to enlighten or inform?

Maybe your point is that banks are bad and you're constructing some allegories and opinions to support that view?

As I said I don't disagree necessarily, I just feel you need to explain why you think they are bad, what do you mean banks are "able to just print money based upon a signature"? The process is not: "somebody asks for a loan, bank prints money", I don't think that's how it works, so I won't lie, i'm not an economist, I'm a doubter, I'm just trying to tell you your perspective on the economy doesn't really mean much to me and seems to discount basically all economic theory that doesn't adhere to some idea of an impending apocalyptic catastrophe.

I don't think that's how it works, so I won't lie, i'm not an economist, I'm a doubter, I'm just trying to tell you your perspective on the economy doesn't really mean much to me and seems to discount basically all economic theory that doesn't adhere to some idea of an impending apocalyptic catastrophe.

andyh wrote:
You live in Ireland not Hatti...

.......... wrote:
That's irrelevant. It affects them too but in different ways.
The countries are offered huge loans in the guise of 'aid'. The militias or corrupt governments spend it all on arming people (feeding the money back into the MIC) and saddle the people with the debt which they never see anything out of anyway. Then when the lenders want their money back, and the interest has spiralled out of control so there is no way the loan can be repaid, the countries are then forced to sell off their resources and land to the corporations as compensation.
You should be able to see by now that it's a worldwide racket.

Space Bandit wrote:
I'm not talking about countries being offered huge loans.

I'm talking about poor people in the 3rd world who live in shacks that might enjoy a loan for a home, car or vacation.

I have only been in the 3rd world when i was in Jamaica for a few weeks.

Doubt many of the people who live there had loans or debt.

Many developing countries and billions of people are devastated under the burden of debt and trade policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO). In 1997, Zambia spent 40% of its total budget to repay foreign debt, and only 7% for basic services like vaccines for children. If debt had been canceled in 1997 for twenty of the poorest countries, the money released for basic health care could have saved the lives of about 21 million children by the year 2000, the equivalent of 19,000 children a day. The failure to cancel debts leaves the poorest countries in the world with nothing to spend on basic needs and much needed infrastructure, leaving millions in poverty and destitution.

The developing world now spends $1.3 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants. Nigeria borrowed around $5 billion and has paid about $16 billion, but still owes $28 billion. That $28 billion came about due to bias in the foreign creditors' interest rates.

7 million children die each year as a result of the debt crisis.

In the 52 Jubilee 2000 countries, a total of 1 billion people shoulder a debt burden of £286 billion. It is interesting to note that this is less than the total net worth of the world's 21 richest individuals.

In 1999, $128 million was transferred from the poorest countries to the richest for debt repayments - EACH DAY. Of this, $53 million was from East Asia and the Pacific, $38 million from South Asia and $23 million from Africa.

Canceling the debts of all 52 Jubilee 2000 countries would only cost one penny a day for each person in the industrialized world for 20 years.

Well of course I do, but do I not need debt to manage to do all this?
Does debt only have to exist in specific locations to be beneficial somehow now?

andyh wrote:
So you managed to pull off a home and cars in Ireland debt and loan free.

Most people in the western world can't say the same.

You mean a GRANT not a loan right?
Or is this a loan thats paid back with work? Perhaps some workhouses right? Maybe some blood donations or body parts perhaps?

National Debt since 1922. Source: HM Treasury and UK Public Spending [1]

These graphs show that government debt as a % of GDP has been much higher in the past. Notably in the aftermath of the two world wars. This suggests that UK debt is manageable compared to the early 1950s. (note, even with a national debt of 200% of GDP in early 1950s, UK avoided default and even managed to set up the Welfare State and NHS. However, in the current climate, the UK wouldn’t be able to borrow the same as in the past. For example, private sector saving is lower, and the US wouldn’t give us big loan like in the 1950s.

andyh wrote:
Are you implying that humans can't figure out how to turn their skills into money so they can pay a loan back?

I never said anything about blood donations or body parts...

Space Bandit wrote:
I'm not talking about countries being offered huge loans.

I'm talking about poor people in the 3rd world who live in shacks that might enjoy a loan for a home, car or vacation.

Since 2007, UK bond yields have fallen. Countries in the Eurozone with similar debt levels have seen a sharp rise in bond yields putting greater pressure on their government to cut spending quickly. However, being outside the Euro with an independent Central Bank (willing to act as lender of last resort to the government) means markets don’t fear a liquidity crisis in the UK; Euro members who don’t have a Central Bank willing to buy bonds during a liquidity crisis have been more at risk to rising bond yields and fears over government debt.p