If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
a) How does credit cement the divide between rich and poor? Access to credit is one of things that can help the poor become richer. As pointed out already it is also notable that the current credit boom is probably more driven by the middle rather than the working class as you seem to have assumed.
b) I didn't realise you went along with the Marxist interpretation of economics, full reward of their labour etc. I won't bother to argue about thst here but suffice to say that I think this interpretation is wrong.......
How has any bank 'stolen' from someone. Credit is voluntary last time I looked?
Yes actually many people should be more careful, if I pulled up an example about a wealthy lawyer who borrowed and got in trouble would you be so sympathetic?
Oh definitely, but it'd be a nice ideal to aim for.
It creates it and maintains it, that's all. :banghead:
That's insane.
Which is going to wimd up dividing them neatly between the rich (a few) and the poor (a lot) so we have no more middle class. A large group of people that are hard to push around are essential for kurbing government power. For this reason everyone should be a little worried about a shrinking middle class.
All banking is theft. You have assumed that the bank has anything worthwhile to offer you. It doesn't. Aside from this, all credit is creating money out of thin air, which then has to be repaid from existing cash. The total amount of debt cannever be repaid and so we get inflation instead. Every time someone uses a credit card or gets a loan they are stealing from every other person who uses the same currency.
All banking is fraud.
I don't assume it is the working class at all.
How does credit cement the divide between rich and poor?
Credit does not increase somebody's wealth, it does in reality make them poorer. Credit is a way of the rich to offer something to those who need it, and make a huge amount of money by exploiting that need.
Credit transfers money, wealth and control from the lower orders to the higher orders. It cements the poor into working for the rich, in order to repay this notional debt plus a whole lot more "interest". For a slight increase in money at a certain point, credit and debt cements the divide between the haves and havenots, and it cements it shut.
I'm starting to be convinced of the merits of it.
Corporate profit is morally wrong. It is robbing from the workers and consumers to line the pockets of those who contribute nothing.
There are differing levels of voluntariness. Lets not pretend the banks are gregariously offering this money to help people, they offer it to make a huge return on zero investment.
Yes. You appear to think I am referring to the council estaters when I refer to the poor.
Compared to the plutocrats who control corporate business we are all poor, poor in terms of wealth and poor in terms of control and power.
The rich do not borrow because they do not need to.
Very few people need to borrow money. People (and I include myself) want to borrow.
I've a credit card which is useful and allows me to get more expensive things without having to save first - that's useful, but its not a neccessity. I could save or I live within my means.
i'm also looking at a mortgage. I want to own my own home - but again its not a neccessity - I can continue to rent.
Banks provide a service - if you want that service you pay. If its too expensive or you think its unfair you either look for another bank or put your money in a box under your bed and live within your means.
Students?
It can and does for some businesses, and not just big multi nationals.
Depends how the money is used, if you invest it or use it to start a business then the person who borrows can enrich themselves. If your not using it for that then what the hell do you need it for, how many people need to borrow to cover basics, very few........
You are also ignoring the fact that banks have costs, they need to pay savers so they can hold their money, that is the other side of the business.
Having said that banks are competitive enough at the moment though hence the very large profits they make. It isn't alwyas that way though, plenty of banks have gone bust in the past etc
Student debt is a totally different issue and far from being the fault of the banks, it is the government who is the blame for that totally.
You still don't need to borrow - there's no law which says you need to be a student. You become a student because you think there is some benefit to you, whether thats a financial benefit (better paid job) or social development (get away from parents, meet new people).
But seeing as you are talking about rip-off interest rates the student example isn't a good one as undergrad loans are charged at zero real interest rate.....
What a bizarre notion that people shouldn't study unless dady is rich enough to pay for it. BUt NQA, you don't seem to think there's a problem that the divide between rich and poor is so gigantic, so I guess you wouldn't find the idea that only the rich can study so repulsive.
Toadborg: the student loans from banks are not charged at zero interest. And the SLC loan is pathetic, it didn't even cover my halls rent.
I'm not talking about 50% APR, I'm saying that all interest rates are a rip-off and deliberately designed to extract money from the poor to give ot the rich.
Actually I think there's a good economic case to be made that in many cases society doesn't benefit economically from the majority of students or certainly those who study humanities.
And on the gap between rich and poor - you're right I don't think its a problem. The poor are getting richer in absolute terms and no-one starves to death in this country due to poverty. Even rough sleepers aren't due to poverty in virtually all cases, but other reasons such as mental illness or drug abuse.
But then I've never made the point that I support student loans - I disagree with them because I think education should be free. My point is that no-one is forced to study.
My loan was perfectly sufficient thankyou. If you couldn't have afforded it you shouldn't have gone to such an expensive uni.....
What NQA was saying is that the loan in fact allows people to avoid the situation where only the rich can go to university. If there was no credit then the elitist situation you describe would be a reality. A good example of how credit helps people get better off........
I ask again, do you ever want a pension, and if so, are all shareholders evil?
its not my fault ucl happens to be in central london is it??
and not everyone goes to uni to earn loads of money after, i want to do public sector work after which is far from financially rewarding, however you need a degree for treaching A Level
but back on topic, its an extortionate amount of interest, if they wanted to help people build up a credit rating, theyd enforce a high enough minumum payment so it doesnt get too bad
Unless you define 'rich' as being 'someone who does not need to borrow', this is not true.
Richard Branson doesn't just open a new sack of money every time he wants to buy a new 747, he goes to the bank, cap in hand, same as everyone. Last I heard, he was in hock upto his eyeballs. Malcolm Glazier too? Buying Man U to float his debts...debts upon debts.
untreated mental illness where others are to blame is normally the problem, and drug abuse is normally taken up after being homeless, simply cause would you want to be aware of your situation or smacked up, i know what id pick! or the huge amount of ex-army who are homeless cause noone wants to help them adjust to civilian life
Yes but you did not have to go to UCL did you?
(though I am being harsh I admit)
I think teachers do OK actually, my dad is a teacher and he is quite well off.
I agree though that there is an issue with pay in some sectors not matching those of toher graduate jobs.
But again like you say it is more rewarding, some people are accountants, have lots of money but little job satisfaction (though I saw a survey saying they were the most satisifed employees!) its about priorotiies and want you want to get out of things.....
there is a thing about pay not being the be and all end all of things, if so we'd all decent graduates becoming lawyers and bankers, not reserachers who get paid crap to do what they enjoy studying, or teachers who pass on the knowledge to more people etc etc, its not all aobut take take take
i just hate how they say average graduate pay is up, we're graduates yes but we're not all the same as we all different career plans
Well there's lot of reasons - but most of them tend to have these problems before they become rough sleepers, rather than going onto the street and then developing problems.
And whilst I agree the biggest cause is mental illness (in military cases often poorly treated PTSD) - none of this is caused by poverty. Absolute poverty doesn't exist in the UK and people sleep on the streets for more complex reasons than they don;t have the money or access to it.
getting people off the streets though...... kind of hard getting a job id take it with no fixed address or half decent clothing
how would you get them off the streets, or help them or what would you say they had to do?
But this has nothing to do with interest rates.
What NQA is saying is there is no absolute poverty in Britain, which is true.
Its not as simple as it sounds but currently there are roughly 500 rough sleepers in England and the 1999/00 Govt budget was £145m for London (which has the majority) and £34m outside over 3 years.
There would be if the bwankers had their way. Numbers burned into your forehead, anyone?
Every time we put something else as being more important than money, civilisation leaps forward a bit. Why not just scrap the whole financial system and think up something else instead?
Is it OK to crap on someone from a great height so long as you manage to keep them alive?
Why should my life opportunities be restricted by how much money I have? Don't have money, don't have ambition, is that right NQA and Toadborg?
Best leave the elite to those with money, they're obviously far more intelligent and far more deserving of success in life.
There used to be student grants, have you forgotten that Toady?
As an example, do you think you'd find many volunteers to empty the bins if you didn't have an incentive of some kind to offer? If this is correct, what incentive would you offer in order to get the less attractive jobs done?
It isn't.