13 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNot nearly so bad here in South Africa where there is tighter regulation and a balanced budget. We only felt the effects of everyone else's bad planning. I think the same goes for China and a number of other countries. My home country Zambia was dependent on the high copper price created by the Chinese boom and they felt the effects, but I don't believe that the bust has left them worse off than before their boom started.
This happened all over the world.
We were all sold on the "boom" but nobody talked about the "bust".
You just didn't listen. People have always talked about the boom bust cycle and I for one heard plenty of people saying the bust was coming.
What I can't understand is how it seems as a nation we are more impoverished than we would have been if the "boom" had never happened.
Are you? Or are you so used to the boom that you have forgotten your history?
Or is it that the boom hid the effects of some really bad economic policies?
It seems as if it's better to have 7 years of steady growth and then 7 years of slow recession , rather than 12 years of boom growth and then 2 years of crashing. It feels like 2 steps forward 4 backward.
I don't believe it is (2 steps back overall). I don't think many countries actually went into recession for very long, and most enjoyed significant growth during the boom years. I can assure you that significant recession would feel much much worse.
The problem is that as people we handle slow growth far better than a boom bust cycle. I know from personal experience that it is very difficult to deal with a declining income even if a few years earlier you had a much lower income. We have a tendency to think things will get better soon and not cut our spending when we should.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn the Netherlands there is a guaranteed minimum income (bijstand). Since the responsibility for handing out this income to the long-term unemployed was handed over to counties, several of them have experimented with these sort of "work houses" - work for your welfare. Quite a good idea, I think, though I'm not sure if it's very effective at getting people to a "normal" job. But it hinders welfare fraud, at least, and some of the work may be quite useful.
I'm down with work houses. I think there should be a place anyone can go and work for minimum wage no strings attached, at whim, cleaning up trash or something.
13 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDo these workhouses include efforts to evaluate the skills and experience a given person has and help them find a job that's a good fit?
I'm not sure if it's very effective at getting peo al" job. But it hinders welfare fraud, at least, and some of the work may be quite useful.
13 Jul 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesFrom what I understand it's usually simple work in agriculture or at factories. Since it costs much less than an ordinary employee, it can be a good choice for employers. But most people on welfare aren't the hardest workers, nor the most talented, so they usually need some guidance and are generally less productive than a normal employee. Apparently some of them went on to get "real" jobs.
Do these workhouses include efforts to evaluate the skills and experience a given person has and help them find a job that's a good fit?
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot ones where you can come and go at whim. The job acquisition process is really a pain in the nuts, and once you have it you're stuck there at risk of being fired. If I wanted to go work for minimum wage I cannot just show up somewhere and be guaranteed work for as long as I want it.
I thought there were plenty of those kind of jobs.
14 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think his point is that no matter what the numbers for "the economy" say, Joe Average is not doing well economically. Thus looking at the entire economy may be misleading due to unreasonably large gap in the distribution of wealth between the top and bottom rungs of the ladder.
Thats what it feels like. But what are the economic figures. Is the UK in recession, and to what extent has the economy shrunk. How much did it grow in the last 10-15 years.
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThats a fair point. Maybe the richest people didn't get affected by the recession. Surely that means that they somehow benefited from it all? Maybe that explains who benefits from the boom bust cycle and might even be encouraging it?
I think his point is that no matter what the numbers for "the economy" say, Joe Average is not doing well economically. Thus looking at the entire economy may be misleading due to unreasonably large gap in the distribution of wealth between the top and bottom rungs of the ladder.
So, does anyone remember what they were earning 10 years ago and whether or not they are earning more or less in real terms now?
If you own property, is it worth more or less now than 10 years ago?
I personally have got a lot wealthier in the last 10 years, but that is mostly as a result of moving to South Africa.
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy ability to make money has gone up drastically but that's due to my increasing levels of education over time.
Thats a fair point. Maybe the richest people didn't get affected by the recession. Surely that means that they somehow benefited from it all? Maybe that explains who benefits from the boom bust cycle and might even be encouraging it?
So, does anyone remember what they were earning 10 years ago and whether or not they are earning more or less in real te ...[text shortened]... a lot wealthier in the last 10 years, but that is mostly as a result of moving to South Africa.
14 Jul 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm impressed with your knowledge of gaming. Anyone who knows terms like "rules lawyer" and "power gamer" MUST be a true grognard. Do you play any particular kinds of boardgames? I thought of another gaming term that would fit the theme of politics: "analysis-paralysis"--the gamer suffering from this dissects the situation, over-engineering it, and tries to look at every possible outcome, and then can't bring himself to vote, for fear that something MIGHT go wrong.
The gamer geek age has produced what is called a "munchkin", "powergamer", "rules lawyer" etc. This is a very intelligent person who devotes his mind towards manipulating the rules of games so as to maximize whatever variables matter to him; most powerful character, higher score, coolest virtual clothes, most virtual money, whatever.
These players ...[text shortened]... o get the money.
We need to "patch" capitalism to make it less cutthroat.
14 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydOh man I hate those people. They can't play the game because they're so busy analyzing the game. My old GM was like that. Eventually I quit his group because I couldn't stand it any more. It wasn't a game - it was a chance to sit around and listen to him blabber about rules and whatever else was on his mind.
I'm impressed with your knowledge of gaming. Anyone who knows terms like "rules lawyer" and "power gamer" MUST be a true grognard. Do you play any particular kinds of boardgames? I thought of another gaming term that would fit the theme of politics: "analysis-paralysis"--the gamer suffering from this dissects the situation, over-engineering it, and tr ...[text shortened]... e outcome, and then can't bring himself to vote, for fear that something MIGHT go wrong.
Grognard is a new word to me.
Axis and Allies is a good game. Cosmic Encounter is another good board game.
http://www.cosmicencounter.com/screens/home.html