Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

SUMMARY OF BUDGET NOV, 2017
Recently Redundant and Retired
Posted: 23 November 2017 18:20:55(UTC)
#22

Joined: 08/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 302

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 140 time(s) in 71 post(s)
TP.
I was thinking of the Pareto principle (80-20 rule) and the Wealth Distribution Pyramid pretty basic stuff for a doyen like yourself. Yes i've read a bit of Marx and Engels, hence my recommendation.
Tony Peterson
Posted: 23 November 2017 19:35:30(UTC)
#23

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,012

Thanks: 593 times
Was thanked: 1143 time(s) in 499 post(s)
R R & R

Quoting a few names hardly answers my question. How about the 90-1500 rule, or the Blombodovitch octahedron, that you must of course fully understand?

Pretty basic stuff?
Alan Selwood
Posted: 24 November 2017 00:11:21(UTC)
#25

Joined: 17/12/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,481

Thanks: 487 times
Was thanked: 3857 time(s) in 1446 post(s)
My head remains firmly below the parapet, in case TP decides it's time to top-slice it! ;)

An afterthought: today's poor are MUCH better off than those in my my parents' generation. My parents would not have expected to have the mid-20th century equivalents of a phone, a tv, a car, or to eat out. Today's unemployed frequently seem to think it is their right to have all of these, and that others ought to provide them.

[Head retreating quickly back below parapet!]
10 users thanked Alan Selwood for this post.
Micawber on 24/11/2017(UTC), Captain Slugwash on 24/11/2017(UTC), geoffrey Walton on 24/11/2017(UTC), john brace on 24/11/2017(UTC), Mickey on 24/11/2017(UTC), jeffian on 24/11/2017(UTC), Keith Cobby on 24/11/2017(UTC), Guest on 24/11/2017(UTC), Martina on 24/11/2017(UTC), Alex Peard on 24/11/2017(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 24 November 2017 09:02:54(UTC)
#27

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,012

Thanks: 593 times
Was thanked: 1143 time(s) in 499 post(s)
Alan

I daresay you would not take such a sanguine view of the relative affluence of today's poor if tonight you had nowhere to sleep but on a pavement?
1 user thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
Tim D on 24/11/2017(UTC)
Recently Redundant and Retired
Posted: 24 November 2017 10:24:25(UTC)
#24

Joined: 08/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 302

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 140 time(s) in 71 post(s)
Tony Peterson;53584 wrote:
R R & R

Quoting a few names hardly answers my question. How about the 90-1500 rule, or the Blombodovitch octahedron, that you must of course fully understand?

Pretty basic stuff?


Gadzooks, I was expecting a debate on wealth distribution, not a bitch-fest fuelled by Wikipedia.
KL has a lot to answer for letting TP use his laptop in the sauna.
2 users thanked Recently Redundant and Retired for this post.
jvl on 24/11/2017(UTC), Jimmy Page on 25/11/2017(UTC)
Tim D
Posted: 24 November 2017 12:06:56(UTC)
#28

Joined: 07/06/2017(UTC)
Posts: 265

Thanks: 984 times
Was thanked: 369 time(s) in 166 post(s)
This got me wondering how inequality and national wealth are correlated across the worlds' nations. I get the impression there are posters here who believe that inequality is a necessary factor in driving wealth creation (and I'd agree; the real question is how much is good/optimal? What I'm dubious about is whether more inequality automatically begets more wealth).

Most succinct summary I could find is this chart (too big to inline).

So while there are both rich and poor countries with low inequality, there are no rich countries with high inequality.

Curiously there's a plot from the OECD here (and click "READ") which suggests this relation has completely inverted over the last 200 years: In 1820 inequality was positively correlated with GDP per head, but now it's negatively correlated.

Was amused to hear this classic on Desert Island Disks this morning.
1 user thanked Tim D for this post.
Tony Peterson on 24/11/2017(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 24 November 2017 17:31:18(UTC)
#29

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,012

Thanks: 593 times
Was thanked: 1143 time(s) in 499 post(s)
Am I to deduce from the "thanks pattern" that there are no posters on this forum that give a shit about rough sleepers?

If so please do not expect any further helpful investment tips from me.
jeffian
Posted: 24 November 2017 19:06:17(UTC)
#32

Joined: 09/03/2011(UTC)
Posts: 400

Thanks: 136 times
Was thanked: 498 time(s) in 199 post(s)
Alternatively, Tony, you could deduce that it has something to do with the triteness of your comment! It's a bit of a leap from a discussion about how the Budget may/may not help those in relative poverty to "rough sleepers", the majority of whom have specific problems of mental health, alcohol, marital breakdown or simply having turned up from abroad without the means to support themselves and no adequate support system in place. It's indeed a serious issue, and maybe one that warrants more than a glib aside from you.
geoffrey Walton
Posted: 24 November 2017 19:24:27(UTC)
#30

Joined: 27/06/2014(UTC)
Posts: 150

Thanks: 59 times
Was thanked: 76 time(s) in 52 post(s)
Tony Peterson;53629 wrote:
Am I to deduce from the "thanks pattern" that there are no posters on this forum that give a shit about rough sleepers?

If so please do not expect any further helpful investment tips from me.



As the poster of "poor", and as I have just given a donation to my local homeless charity - NO Mr Peterson, you may not "deduce" that, but the overall sentiments in post 24, are probably fair comment, but nowhere does the post mention "rough sleepers"
k mc d
Posted: 24 November 2017 19:49:06(UTC)
#26

Joined: 18/12/2014(UTC)
Posts: 24

Thanks: 27 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Alan Selwood;53592 wrote:
My head remains firmly below the parapet, in case TP decides it's time to top-slice it! ;)

An afterthought: today's poor are MUCH better off than those in my my parents' generation. My parents would not have expected to have the mid-20th century equivalents of a phone, a tv, a car, or to eat out. Today's unemployed frequently seem to think it is their right to have all of these, and that others ought to provide them.

[Head retreating quickly back below parapet!]


You seem to think it is only the unemployed who are poor in today's society? Isnt most welfare spending spent on.... pensioners, whilst the under 25 and more recently - the disabled are hit hardest to make up for the mistakes of the 1%.
I bet your parents expected free social care and a state pension when they retired, and that others ought to provide it?
2 users thanked k mc d for this post.
Tony Peterson on 24/11/2017(UTC), Tim D on 24/11/2017(UTC)
geoffrey Walton
Posted: 24 November 2017 20:05:15(UTC)
#33

Joined: 27/06/2014(UTC)
Posts: 150

Thanks: 59 times
Was thanked: 76 time(s) in 52 post(s)
Let us not fall out over the use of words, or interpretations. Most of us would I think want to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Perhaps we should all leave this Thread alone now.

Love and peace to all.
2 users thanked geoffrey Walton for this post.
Tony Peterson on 24/11/2017(UTC), jeffian on 25/11/2017(UTC)
Tony Peterson
Posted: 24 November 2017 20:30:41(UTC)
#34

Joined: 10/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,012

Thanks: 593 times
Was thanked: 1143 time(s) in 499 post(s)
Geoffrey

Your post is well meant and I commend you for it.

Yet we have an acute problem, and I feel obliged every day to contribute to our local food bank. It is a symptom of a deep malaise. within our society, or so it seems to me. We must not shrink from discussing it.

I have been briefly homeless, been rescued from near certain death by the kindness of strangers, been bailed out by former enemies after falling victim to robbery. I cannot pass a man, or woman, on a pavement at night and not say "what are we getting wrong here?"

More and more wealth is being generated by machines, yet only a few individuals are getting the benefit. Peace and love are desirable attributes, but justice demands more than pious thoughts.







3 users thanked Tony Peterson for this post.
Tim D on 24/11/2017(UTC), Jay Mi on 24/11/2017(UTC), geoffrey Walton on 24/11/2017(UTC)
Jay Mi
Posted: 24 November 2017 20:47:37(UTC)
#18

Joined: 11/03/2017(UTC)
Posts: 77

Thanks: 47 times
Was thanked: 63 time(s) in 35 post(s)
Tim D;53554 wrote:
IMHO those low paid workers will not see their conditions improve until they Get Organized and the Unions start throwing their weight around again. Not holding my breath waiting for it though: the erosion of union power and casualisation of work are major headwinds.


The CWU Tried this. Didn't work. I never got my strike day.
Royal Mail break the same agreement that that they used to get the strike cancelled on a daily basis.
Then union then doesn't do anything about this when it gets broken - The standard response is work to your time and go home completely ignoring that you'll then have the extra work the next day and the day after...

And as Alan Selwood said "not being efficient enough, not communicating well, not being prepared to do work that needs to be done." - It all goes wrong with a lack of communication.
Mickey
Posted: 24 November 2017 22:25:20(UTC)
#31

Joined: 21/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 417

Thanks: 1171 times
Was thanked: 395 time(s) in 196 post(s)
Tony Peterson;53629 wrote:
Am I to deduce from the "thanks pattern" that there are no posters on this forum that give a shit about rough sleepers?

If so please do not expect any further helpful investment tips from me.

As someone who has not had the time to 'read & thank' but am a regular supporter of the Salvation Army, please keep posting and don't take my absence from this thread as a 'lack of concern indicator.'
jvl
Posted: 25 November 2017 12:02:47(UTC)
#35

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 340

Thanks: 192 times
Was thanked: 388 time(s) in 173 post(s)
Tony Peterson;53640 wrote:
... Peace and love are desirable attributes, but justice demands more than pious thoughts.


... says the eighty year old guy with an apparent million pound plus portfolio who spends quite a lot of time on here boasting about how much he's made on his latest masterful trades.

For some of us with a lot less who (hopefully) have many more years to live, very young families to bring up and support, full-time jobs to do and huge mortgages still to pay, it sounds like you're one of the rich who could simply afford to pay this money for causes you're virtue-signalling and preaching about rather than badgering us to pay more.
3 users thanked jvl for this post.
TJL on 25/11/2017(UTC), Jimmy Page on 25/11/2017(UTC), Guest on 04/12/2017(UTC)
alex grin
Posted: 04 December 2017 09:30:35(UTC)
#36

Joined: 29/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 1

thanks for the useful info! so timely
2 PagesPrevious page12
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets