MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Seattle Wages Soar! Spread the wealth!  (Read 17394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: April 05, 2015, 21:57 »
+1
Do you think there is any real free market economy in the world without any interfering from the government? Name few if you can please
Disneyland?
Can't think of any others.


« Reply #126 on: April 05, 2015, 22:08 »
-5
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.


exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.


Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.


+1 Proves over and over what a selfish .

Uncle Pete

« Reply #127 on: April 05, 2015, 22:33 »
+1
Sorry Shelma1, the problem isn't Rob coming in after the fact, and making good on a situation, but was because of poor lending standards, greed, and people who couldn't "afford" the home in the first place. That's what caused the economic collapse. Lending money to people based on lies or bonuses for making the loans.

Now we're in a different market and there are income regulations again. (like there once were in the 70s and 80) You have to prove you have income and the ability to pay the mortgage. Also the values of the properties are moving down to real value, not something like a pump and dump stock scam.

Blame the people for buying beyond their means and the loan officers for creating this failure, not people now who didn't fall for the fraud.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.

« Reply #128 on: April 05, 2015, 22:51 »
+2
Sorry Shelma1, the problem isn't Rob coming in after the fact, and making good on a situation, but was because of poor lending standards, greed, and people who couldn't "afford" the home in the first place. That's what caused the economic collapse. Lending money to people based on lies or bonuses for making the loans.

Now we're in a different market and there are income regulations again. (like there once were in the 70s and 80) You have to prove you have income and the ability to pay the mortgage. Also the values of the properties are moving down to real value, not something like a pump and dump stock scam.

Blame the people for buying beyond their means and the loan officers for creating this failure, not people now who didn't fall for the fraud.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.



Not - They are going in for a second round of * our pockets dry, and guess who will pay for the bail outs.

U.S. Banks Relax Loan Standards
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banks-relax-loan-standards-1418760626

Subprime deja vu: Bank car loan lending standards ease
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101004130

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #129 on: April 06, 2015, 00:42 »
+1
socialism was much more unfair and was over long long time ago.

i lived in socialist and communist countries and i can say they had both pros and cons.
from my observations there wasn't a single critical key issue but a whole set of systemic issues and they were an integral part of how the system itself was designed from the start.

the USSR could have been easily saved if they wanted but they had to use the brute force and it was too late anyway as it's been killed from the inside.

the issue is not the fall of the USSR but that it fell so quick, a gradual transition to a mixed economy would have been the best option but this was not the plan of the West and their puppet Eltsin.

in any case there are many many lessons to learn from the old USSR and the socialist countries.
most of their social engineering has been a disaster, other things were not so bad but ultimately their planned economy policies turned out into a mess ... agriculture, mining, and even military research.

but the most spectacular failure was in the creation of the so called "soviet new man" ... people will laugh for centuries at this very idea and at the outcomes of this absurd idea.

in many ways communism, socialism, and capitalism are fruits of the same rotten tree.

« Reply #130 on: April 06, 2015, 05:24 »
0
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.


exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.


Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.


I'm not sure how you get that from what I said. The point is that there's always opportunities to get ahead even when things look their worst. And now things aren't even at their worst.

And I'm not sure about your world, but in mine, saving up $90k in cash isn't luck. It takes a lot of effort. I even had to cash in my 401K. Maybe you're like Obama and you think the government did that for me. I also had to risk my life savings not knowing if the housing market would ever come back. These are the kinds of things small business owners are doing, which is why they should decide how much to pay their employees. Not the government.

You see, it's their money they're paying out and it's their business they're trying to keep afloat. Not yours. 
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 05:29 by robhainer »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #131 on: April 06, 2015, 05:35 »
+4
Wow wow wow guys, its just a difference of opinion, no need to call names because someone has a different point of view.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #132 on: April 06, 2015, 05:44 »
0
so where are you living??? a long time ago Enoch Powell had the same spite for immigrants
in Britain but no one in England wanted to work instead of collecting social assistance. The brown immigrant flooded England to work as garbage collectors, WC cleaners and maintenance,etc
Powell was pissedoff because they brown the white society.
these days, we also have low-paid immigrants like you call them coming from latin-am, eastern europe, etc
seems like everyone dislike the idea of immigrants. we forget sometimes that the first immigrants came to USA as cheap labor too, to build the railroad and they too were looked down upon by the settlers.
but before the settlers came, the land was actually already occupied by the native.
in india and other colonies, the same thing was happening when the cocky brits and spanish and portuguese considered themselves as the founder of the land long occupied by natives.

so, cut the crap about low paid immigrants flooding the nation.
to USA


there are zero benefits from unregulated mass immigration for anyone who is not owning properties and is an employee, that's the point.

housing prices go up, salaries are kept artificially low, and many jobs are grabbed by foreigners leaving nothing to the locals.

from this scenario, i 100% understand the anti-immigration feelings that are now mainstream in continental europe.

for anything else we can all agree that it's all been seen over and over in the past and we should just accept it but Oz and the US and the other colonies were quite a different reality from Europe.

employers will seek any way to cut costs, as that's their primary goal to make profit or at least to stay afloat and in business, but this is impacting society as a whole in the moment that foreigners become 10-20% of the whole population ... i mean in cities like Berlin up to 40% of the residents are not germans, this is something unseen in the last centuries.


« Reply #133 on: April 06, 2015, 05:48 »
0
For Easter Monday reading...Where to invest next? Nigeria and Vietnam...

http://blogs.wsj.com/frontiers/2015/01/15/nigeria-consolidates-status-as-most-watched-frontier-market/

« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 06:00 by KnowYourOnions »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #134 on: April 06, 2015, 05:49 »
+3
Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


the middle class will disappear anyway because in the actual scenario with an average salary you're no longer part of the middle class, at best you're "lower middle class".

« Reply #135 on: April 06, 2015, 05:59 »
0

There's plenty of opportunities for people who have the right skills for jobs that are in demand and are motivated to get a job

It seems like the go-getter is a dying breed.


yes but only as long as the US limits the number of H1B visas and as the EU sticks with draconian work laws, the whole supply/demand is totally artificial and if it was for the employers they would flood the market with millions of skilled but low-paid immigrants.


H1B salaries to check... just type company name

Here is Google - http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=GOOGLE+INC&job=

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #136 on: April 06, 2015, 06:14 »
+1
You forget that, what you want, has been tried for 50 years in Eastern Europe,  with disastrous social consequences. You forget that systems where some "elite" tried to fight the market forces failed miserably.
Before '89, East Germany was way behind West Germany, despite being populated by the same Germans. Look at South an North Korea. Same people, two systems. There is no need to highlight, which one belives that rules and regulations, instead if market forces, will bring prosperity (instead of inequality driven by greedy capitalists :) )

You want more government control,  more artificial rules, laws and regulations? You don't have to be Nostradamus, to imagine where it will end. Just look at North Korea. History can easily repeat itself.

there's no debate that communism was the worst disaster produced in the last centuries, personally i'm a fan of mixed economies like actual China but at the same time having lived in china and in the rest of asia i'm fully aware that what the price to pay for the actual chinese economy will be very high sooner or later when the bubble explodes and it's just a matter of time and it's already visible in the big cities like Beijing where housing prices have almost tripled in the last 7-8 yrs while salaries have not.

i've been in west and east germany after and before 1989, i've been in korea recently, i've been in russia and eastern europe, i haven't seen any economic paradise or any "workers' paradise", each country had pros and cons, some cities were richer than others, some areas were poorer and other areas were clean and well administered, it's hard to reduce everything in a binary form "good vs bad" ... i mean it's all relative, if a tourist go in Detroit he will be hardly impressed by the fruits of american capitalism ...

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #137 on: April 06, 2015, 06:23 »
+1
I don't think highly about government interference in the economy. This is exactly what is debated in this thread.

sure, but we could agree that some core industries like water, basic foods, public education, and cheap housing should be kept as a monopoly by the state otherwise the so called "market forces" would make scorched earth.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #138 on: April 06, 2015, 06:25 »
+4
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.


exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.


Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.


It's horrible and unfortunate when someone loses their house. It's your home. It's your life. Here in the US a major reason for the housing crisis was people buying homes they couldn't afford in the first place.

Where I live a large percentage of foreclosures were "McMansion" $300,000US+ luxury homes. Before I went to buy a house I ran the numbers for my expenses, income, savings, etc, and figured out what I could afford. When I went to the bank the loan officer told me "you qualify for $XXX,XXX.". It was twice as much as the number I came up with. I told him "yeah, I qualify for that, but there's no way I could afford it." I'd be in foreclosure within months. But plenty of people bought houses based on what they qualified for which wasn't what they could afford. Why? Maybe some greed of wanting a nice house. Maybe ignorance not knowing what they could afford. Maybe poor planing and not having enough savings in the event one member of the household lost their job. Maybe just horrendously bad fortune.

I'm sure few people will agree with what I'm about to say because this is probably considered "old school" mentality. In my opinion we are increasingly moving toward a society where there's little self-accountability. When someone does something wrong or makes a bad decision it's someone elses fault. Commit an armed robbery and get shot by the convenience store owner? It's the store owners fault. Can't get a job? It's because somebody else isn't providing the jobs. Don't make enough money to live in an ultra expensive city? It's the business's fault and the government needs to force them to give higher pay.

I believe your fortune should only equal what you're capable of achieving. But we're increasingly headed toward a society of penalizing the hard workers and rewarding people who make bad decisions, perform poorly, or expect hand outs. The news is constantly reporting about the move toward only rich and poor. Should we be surprised that the middle class is disappearing?

So who's fault is it when someone buys a house they can't afford? Banks fault? Seller's fault? Foreclosure buyer's fault? Nobody is responsible for their decisions anymore.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 08:34 by PaulieWalnuts »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #139 on: April 06, 2015, 06:30 »
+4
H1B salaries to check... just type company name

Here is Google - http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=GOOGLE+INC&job=


the irony is that while Amurrica claims to be the gold standard of world capitalism at the same time is enforcing things like H1B and green card lotteries that have nothing to do with what they're preaching as limiting the intake of foreign skilled workers is just their dirty way to preserve their privileges and the sky-high salaries of US-born professionals that could be easily replaced by a wave of skilled immigrants from europe, russia, australia, not necessarily just from the third world.


« Reply #140 on: April 06, 2015, 06:39 »
+4
The trouble with capitalism (and I speak as a perplexed capitalist) is that the logic of it sucks wealth from the poor to the rich and it has no vision that extends beyond next year's shareholder report. So it fails to meet the needs of a large underclass and it fails to meet the needs of future generations. However, nothing can compete with it as long as humanity lives by the capitalist paradigm that the acquisition of wealth is good. It's funny to hear the politicians in the UK election making their pitch: Labour says the Conservatives will take money and services from people but Labour will give people money and services, the Conservatives say Labour will take money from people and ruin services but they will make people richer and protect services. Both in their own way are believers in the mantra that Greed is Good, and they appeal to the greed of the electorate.
**
Wasn't a major reason for the housing crisis a rise in interest rates which made affordable mortgages unaffordable? With UK interest rates at rock bottom, a return to a normal BoE base rate of 5% or 6% might double interest repayments for some people and drive them to the wall. Then, I suppose, we will say they bought houses they couldn't afford.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #141 on: April 06, 2015, 06:40 »
+4
So who's fault is it when someone buys a house they can't afford? Banks fault? Seller's fault? Foreclosure buyer's fault? Nobody is responsible for their decisions anymore.

actually i agree 100% with your analysis !
but the actual abysmal scenario is the direct consequence of decades of dumbing down in the West's education paired with the hammering capitalist propaganda by banks and the media about a mythical "perpetual growth" in salaries and buying power.

people should face the reality that the government is NOT their friend and that the banks are NOT their friends, but for whatever reason they've been told otherwise since birth, so now we might wonder who's really to blame for this.

as a matter of fact, you can't trust anyone but good luck convincing the do-gooders that the whole system is a Ponzi scheme, for starters they lack the prerequisite economic background to understand these things, and secondly it would clash against a whole life of indoctrination, patriotism, and brainwashing.

i mean, take out the banks and you've the loan sharks, take out the loan sharks and you have micro-credit scams and any other sort of ripoffs, there's no way to fix the age old issue of "a fool and his money are soon parted"....

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #142 on: April 06, 2015, 06:47 »
-2
The trouble with capitalism (and I speak as a perplexed capitalist) is that the logic of it sucks wealth from the poor to the rich and it has no vision that extends beyond next year's shareholder report. So it fails to meet the needs of a large underclass and it fails to meet the needs of future generations. However, nothing can compete with it as long as humanity lives by the capitalist paradigm that the acquisition of wealth is good. It's funny to hear the politicians in the UK election making their pitch: Labour says the Conservatives will take money and services from people but Labour will give people money and services, the Conservatives say Labour will take money from people and ruin services but they will make people richer and protect services. Both in their own way are believers in the mantra that Greed is Good, and they appeal to the greed of the electorate.
**
Wasn't a major reason for the housing crisis a rise in interest rates which made affordable mortgages unaffordable? With UK interest rates at rock bottom, a return to a normal BoE base rate of 5% or 6% might double interest repayments for some people and drive them to the wall. Then, I suppose, we will say they bought houses they couldn't afford.

it was well know from the start that "capitalism will eat itself", but because they can also print trillions of new $ and nobody complain it will take a bit longer than expected to see it falling down where it deserves.

while Greed is the root cause of all this it's also a human factor than won't ever go away so we better deal with it.

for anything else let me say that even if housing prices go down who's going to afford the cost for heating in winter and all the new draconian taxes that the EU will impose in one way or another ?

it's already a luxury having one single baby, soon it will be a luxury to rent a room, what's next ? i keep saying that not long ago even the slaves in the cotton plantations had it better as they were guaranteed food and accomodation and healthcare, all things that are no longer taken for granted in the West noawadays.


« Reply #143 on: April 06, 2015, 06:52 »
+2
The trouble with capitalism (and I speak as a perplexed capitalist) is that the logic of it sucks wealth from the poor to the rich and it has no vision that extends beyond next year's shareholder report. So it fails to meet the needs of a large underclass and it fails to meet the needs of future generations. However, nothing can compete with it as long as humanity lives by the capitalist paradigm that the acquisition of wealth is good. It's funny to hear the politicians in the UK election making their pitch: Labour says the Conservatives will take money and services from people but Labour will give people money and services, the Conservatives say Labour will take money from people and ruin services but they will make people richer and protect services. Both in their own way are believers in the mantra that Greed is Good, and they appeal to the greed of the electorate.
**
Wasn't a major reason for the housing crisis a rise in interest rates which made affordable mortgages unaffordable? With UK interest rates at rock bottom, a return to a normal BoE base rate of 5% or 6% might double interest repayments for some people and drive them to the wall. Then, I suppose, we will say they bought houses they couldn't afford.

The trouble with you is you know how to take a step back and get a balanced well thought out view. That wont win you any friends on this here internet.

Shelma1

« Reply #144 on: April 06, 2015, 07:06 »
+3
At the bottom end employers will pay as little as possible.  If left to market forces we will have what we have had in the past, which was basically slavery and/or people working under horrible conditions.


exactly, or even not paid at all with the excuse of unpaid stages and internships, i can attest this sh-it is going on even in top-tier multinationals like IBM or Oracle, go figure...

the market forces don't care about the social consequences of all this, and the governments have abdicated from their natural role ... the entire West is de facto at the mercy of the greediest and most corrupt multinationals and speculators in housing, education, food, energy and pretty much any primary item humans need, sooner or later they will privatize even water with the excuse of global warming.


Long article but worth the read, not completely accurate but close enough, they sucked the middle class dry on a large scale and left many without retirement or jobs. 

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis Timeline
http://tinyurl.com/37q963


Worked out good for me. I was able to buy a foreclosure for $75,000 in 2011, remodel it for about $15,000 and now I'm selling it for $150,000 after 2.5 years. All tax free because I used it as my primary residence and reinvesting it in a new, better house.


Your attitude simply amazes me. The only reason the mortgage crisis worked for you was luck. If you'd bought that house 5 years earlier, it would now be worth less than what you paid for it. But heck, it worked for you, so eff the suckers who could afford a house before you could.


It's horrible and unfortunate when someone loses their house. It's your home. It's your life. Here in the US a major reason for the housing crisis was people buying homes they couldn't afford in the first place.

Where I live a large percentage of foreclosures were "McMansion" $300,000US+ luxury homes. Before I went to buy a house I ran the numbers for my expenses, income, savings, etc, and figured out what I could afford. When I went to the bank the loan officer told me "you qualify for $XXX,XXX.". It was twice as much as the number I came up with. I told him "yeah, I qualify for that, but there's no way I could afford it." I'd be in foreclosure within months. But plenty of people bought houses based on what they qualified for which wasn't what they could afford. Why? Maybe some greed of wanting a nice house. Maybe ignorance not knowing what they could afford. Maybe poor planing and not having enough savings in the event one member of the household lost their job. Maybe just horrendously bad fortune.

I'm sure few people will agree with what I'm about to say because this is probably considered "old school" mentality. In my opinion we are increasingly moving toward a society where there's little self-accountability. When someone does something wrong or makes a bad decision it's someone elses fault. Commit an armed robbery and get shot by the convenience store owner? It's the store owners fault. Can't get a job? It's because somebody else isn't providing the jobs. Don't make enough money to live in an ultra expensive city? It's the business's fault and the government needs to force them to give higher pay.

I believe your fortune should only equal what you're capable of achieving. But we're increasingly headed toward a society of penalizing the hard workers and rewarding people who make bad decisions, perform poorly, or expect hard outs. The news is constantly reporting about the move toward only rich and poor. Should we be surprised that the middle class is disappearing?

So who's fault is it when someone buys a house they can't afford? Banks fault? Seller's fault? Foreclosure buyer's fault? Nobody is responsible for their decisions anymore.


There's culpability on both sides, IMO. Some homeowners should not have bought the homes they did, because they had balloon mortgages that would be impossible to pay once the interest rate went up (though I'm guessing many people were hoping they'd be making more money by the time that came about). However, banks and investors were absolutely predatory in this instance. They targeted certain groups and purposely sold them unaffordable mortgages, bundled those mortgages into difficult-to-undertand investment instruments, then bet against the homeowners being able to pay those mortgages. When the homeowners went into foreclosure the investors made a killing.

And when the bubble burst those mortgage lenders were on a rampage. At the time my dad passed away, and I had to sell his house as executor of his estate. His bank absolutely refused to give me or my attorneys a payoff amount because they were dead set on foreclosing. The house was worth much more to them if they could sell it at auction than the mortgage was worth if the estate paid it off. They finally were forced to give us a payoff amount the morning of the closing, because my attorney told them we "ARE selling this house TODAY." But for months they played games, pretending they'd never received my admin paperseven when my attorneys sent them. They even tried to serve my mom, who was dying of dementia in a nursing home, with foreclosure papersimpossible, because I was her legal guardian because she lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for herself any more.

I've worked for banks (in marketing) for decades. They are predatory. They prey on the naive and poor and uneducated.

« Reply #145 on: April 06, 2015, 08:00 »
0
-I've worked for banks (in marketing) for decades. They are predatory. They prey on the naive and poor and uneducated.
Excuse the snip.
Banks are predatory indeed. They do no one any favours apart from themselves. No matter what the smiley, happy shiny ads would lead us to believe.
Banks, insurance companies, estate agents, car dealers, stock agencies (:)) The list is endless.
They all want their profit above anything else.

Unfortunately, as adults we all have to take responsibilities for our own dealings in this world. We have to understand the rules that govern any of those dealings, see the pitfalls, and if necessary be prepared to use the law, or at least the threat of it to sort out problems.

Being naive or uneducated will always get people into trouble of one sort or another.
If a bank didn't take money off those people, a magic bean seller would.

There is no such thing as "fair" in this world. Life isn't fair.

« Reply #146 on: April 06, 2015, 08:20 »
0
Yes I'm sure. It's a document issued by the swedish police. Is that reliable enough?
Now good luck finding a single Guardian article about it.

The introduction to the police document (via google translate) says: "In Sweden , there are currently 55 geographic areas where local criminal networks is considered to have a negative impact on the local community . The areas are spread across 22 cities - from big cities to small towns and is regarded as socio- economically disadvantaged . The vast criminal law covers of the local community appears to be linked to the social context in the areas of rather than on the willingness of criminals to take control and auditing in the local community ."
That doesn't seem like an admission of no-go areas, more of a guide to areas where more action is needed. However, as you presumably read Swedish and have read the report you refer to, could you point me to the section of the report that admits these are "no go areas" and I can google-translate from the original for myself?
I like to check the basis of unexpected assertions for myself, in line with Sagan's mantra that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Ok, let's take a closer look:

"Frequently crime among the local criminals in areas including open drug trafficking, criminal settlements which manifests itself in serious violence on public places, various forms of extortion and unlawful influence and acting out dissatisfaction with society. All of the above expressions manifests public criminal power and become a reminder of what the criminal actors are capable of. This along with active pressure on the local community in the form of threats, violence and extortion assumed to be the basis for the fear police perceives in the local community. The fear manifests itself in that it is difficult to get people to participate in the legal process against the local criminals.

Development of the areas has led to difficulties in investigating crimes. Police have also in other respects difficulty working in these areas, including due to the environment reacting against the police in providing assistance or by attacking police vehicles. Police difficulty in curbing the problems mentioned can be a contributing factor to the public in several cases understands that it is the criminals who control the area procedures. Such a perception may contest the role of the police as a guarantor of security, and reduces the public's tendency to turn to the police. The situation in these areas is worrying and has in several cases meant that the police have not been able to fulfill its task."

---

Interesting enough, they never mention the word immigration or muslim for fear of appearing racist. Reminds me of Rotherham scandal. The immigration agenda is here to stay and we can already see the declining society and values in western countries. US and Western Europe will become uninhabitable in a few more decades, and the media is playing a huge role into brainwashing people to accept it with their mouths shut.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 09:16 by Nikovsk »

« Reply #147 on: April 06, 2015, 10:08 »
+2
-I've worked for banks (in marketing) for decades. They are predatory. They prey on the naive and poor and uneducated.
Excuse the snip.
Banks are predatory indeed. They do no one any favours apart from themselves. No matter what the smiley, happy shiny ads would lead us to believe.
Banks, insurance companies, estate agents, car dealers, stock agencies (:)) The list is endless.
They all want their profit above anything else.

Unfortunately, as adults we all have to take responsibilities for our own dealings in this world. We have to understand the rules that govern any of those dealings, see the pitfalls, and if necessary be prepared to use the law, or at least the threat of it to sort out problems.

Being naive or uneducated will always get people into trouble of one sort or another.
If a bank didn't take money off those people, a magic bean seller would.

There is no such thing as "fair" in this world. Life isn't fair.

Add one more thing to the mix. A lot of those mortgages were taken out by people who knew they probably couldn't repay them, but taking the mortgages out had very little actual risk for them. They were in such terrible financial straights that making a strategic default wouldn't really hurt their credit rating much more, it was worth a punt. They saw no ethical reason to keep their word and try to pay back the mortgage before other debts as they see companies do the same thing all the time. Directors get huge paychecks and bonuses for apparently having a lot of responsibility, when in fact they get a golden parachute if anything goes wrong. Hell they were proved right when it all went tits up and even the banks got to shirk their debts with huge bailouts.

Meanwhile, the banks desperately wanted to give out sub prime mortgages so they could package them together with other mortgages they called less risky (a lot weren't but that's a story for another time), and sell the financial derivatives to Chinese money desperately looking for any investment opportunity.

Not sure what the lesson is except that things are pretty mucky for the large part from any angle you want to look at them, and perhaps that a lot of the actors that were involved didn't go into it with their eyes closed.

ultimagina

« Reply #148 on: April 06, 2015, 10:22 »
-4
I don't think highly about government interference in the economy. This is exactly what is debated in this thread.

Great, but you said many times when replying to me about "not being able to compete with free market economies" which in the matter of fact don't even exist.

So many prices are controlled and you said that the problem is helping the poor.

Socialism where "equal to all" is completely unfair, but system where few percent of most richest people own same amount of money as the rest of the world is at least unfair as socialism. That's why world need third option.

Biggest economies in the world were made on the power of slavery/immigrants and now same countries are being smart a$$ and talking poorer ones what and how should they do things. If it isn't sad it would be funny.

With no minimum wages you can always say if someone don't want to work for 2$ per hour, you can find others that want to. Sure you can find someone from third world countries who will work for food and warm bed but if you think only about economical justification, not moral/political/law/humanity or any other then the best way from company or country to succeed is free workers (read:slavery). Is it?

Just to stay on track with this topic: each time a government interferes with the market (like for example artificially imposing minimum wages), it pumps another blow in a future economical bubble.
You might not see major effects immediately.
This is what the populist, irresponsible politicians count on: to appear as saviors, when in fact they act according to "Apres moi, le Deluge" policies!

Now, when the bubble bursts, it is very, very painful. When the socialist economy bubble has exploded, the effect was dramatic, as you mentioned above.
When the housing bubble exploded, the effect on the American and world economies was very painful as well.
All these bubbles are created by governments who mingled with the economy by printing money to cover-up for their unsustainable borrowing or other failed economical policies (i.e artificial wage increases, housing or basic goods subsidies).

The economy will always fall back where the equilibrium between demand and offer is met. And then, the "fall" will hurt a lot!

And now about your other concerns:
There is no absolute freedom, and obviously, there is no absolute free market economy!
When I mentioned "free market" economy, I used the term in a relative way. Obviously, there is no economical freedom in a socialist country where all costs and salaries are (wrongly) decided by some bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, your claim about slavery being one of the reason behind the prosperity of the "developed economies" comes straight from the communist party manual.

Mind you that slavery was widespread in Africa itself (and to some extend it still is, in some areas).
It didn't help African countries to become prosperous.
Even if the communist party manual doesn't tell it to you, slavery has been very much present in Eastern Europe: millions or gypsies had absolutely no rights, being forced to work, with no pay, for their landlords, restricted by law from leaving their domains. Gypsy slavery ended up, more or less simultaneously, with the slavery in the rest of, what is today, the developed world.

It is also a fact that, during the inter-war period, several Eastern European economies, part of the "free market" world back then, were very competitive. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc had better economies than Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy or Portugal.
Only the Russian imposed communism, centralized planing and disregard for private property, brought all these economies to their knees.

As for immigration, yes, this definitely helps the economy. But the economy has first to be attractive and healthy, for immigrants do take their chances and come in and contribute to further growth. Who would want to immigrate in an unstable country or were basic freedoms are not respected?


« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 10:51 by ultimagaina »

« Reply #149 on: April 06, 2015, 10:55 »
+5
Just to stay on track with this topic: each time a government interferes with the market (like for example artificially imposing minimum wages), it pumps another blow in a future economical bubble.
You might not see major effects immediately.
This is what the populist, irresponsible politicians count on: to appear as saviors, when in fact they act according to "Apres moi, le Deluge" policies!
Governments interfere with markets in all sorts of ways that almost every person agrees is appropriate.  Would it be best to let the free market decide how much lead or arsenic or fecal matter are ok for drinking water?  How many people would need to die before the free market fixed the problem?  Should doctors be free from market interference or again should we wait for people to die before we correct problems?  Building codes interfere with the market, national parks interfere with the market, car safety regulations interfere with the market.  Would it be better if we waited for buildings to collapse and then stopped using a construction company or regulate it first and prevent catastrophes?   What about externalities, if companies want to make a quick profit by dumping toxic waste and then go bankrupt they can walk away with millions and leave the area devastated.  Markets need to be interfered with.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1447 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 17:27
by Rahul Pathak
1 Replies
1277 Views
Last post September 13, 2012, 11:36
by StanRohrer
11 Replies
2400 Views
Last post May 01, 2013, 22:52
by Silken Photography
3 Replies
2711 Views
Last post May 04, 2014, 13:34
by Click Images
0 Replies
1220 Views
Last post January 28, 2015, 12:06
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results