What's with the riots?

[Ghost of Electricity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYGOzqufAAU

 

What about when democracy itself is at stake? Are the activists/rioters here guilty of "douchebaggery?"

[Synthesizer Patel]

The more I think about it, the more absurd this rioting seems. Their education is being paid for only almost entirely by others (presumably, even if they spend 7 1/2 years getting a major in masturbatory studies) and they're actually protesting the fact that they're not getting a completely free ride. It would be like someone gave you a suitcase full of money on the condition that you pay $100 for the actual case, and you respond by taking the suitcase and throwing rocks at his kids.

 

in england it's actually about increased tuition fees. when i went it was means tested, and most people still had to pay something towards that cost. then obviously you had to take out a student loan to pay for your daily living. coming out of university and taking out a mortage to get on the property ladder for an over-priced house, whilst being saddled with a university debt is simply crippling - it's clearly a big contributing factor to this culture of credit & debt, and it's very very hard to get out of.

 

the problem in the uk is that the countries wealth is owned mostly by the old - the gap between the wealth of the young and the old is increasingly growing. this issue only makes that gap wider.

 

anyway, my personal view is that too many people are going to university without the future prospect of that higher level of education leading to better jobs. there simply aren't the jobs for the young to go around. having lots of highly educated people on benefits because they can't find a job of a standard they require is no good for anyone.

[ikol]

Education can be made to be universally available at a cost of zero. It is being done.

 

If education can have zero cost, why are there budget issues?

 

I see this as a good thing, far better than having education available to a small, rich elite. The fact that a government has to take a difficult decision in the direction of the latter is unfortunate. The fact that you seem to be saying they should be running in that direction as fast as they can is, in my humble opinion, the most absurd thing about this discussion.

 

Perhaps there's some middle ground between universally "free" higher education and only Bill Gates' kids get college degrees: for example, the system we have here where you have state colleges with lower tuition and plenty of scholarships available.

 

What about when democracy itself is at stake? Are the activists/rioters here guilty of "douchebaggery?"

 

Certainly less so than people protesting that they might have to pay a little more for their tuition.

 

in england it's actually about increased tuition fees. when i went it was means tested, and most people still had to pay something towards that cost. then obviously you had to take out a student loan to pay for your daily living. coming out of university and taking out a mortage to get on the property ladder for an over-priced house, whilst being saddled with a university debt is simply crippling - it's clearly a big contributing factor to this culture of credit & debt, and it's very very hard to get out of.

 

Do they not have renting in England?

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Would it be rude at this point to ask you to remind me again how many iPods you've purchased for your children?

 

We know that they're rioting European youth, and that's all we know. It's fine to leave it at that, you know.

 

Yes it would, but I expect ad hominum attacks from you

 

I work 60 hours a week. I am paying for my daughter's education without taking out loans. I parent my children. I don't have anything to be ashamed of. AND I have never been to a fucking tea party rally or thrown a Molotov cocktail over the outrageous amount of taxes I pay.

I don't think I need you to lecture me.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Yes it would, but I expect ad hominum attacks from you

 

I work 60 hours a week. I am paying for my daughter's education without taking out loans. I parent my children. I don't have anything to be ashamed of. AND I have never been to a fucking tea party rally or thrown a Molotov cocktail over the outrageous amount of taxes I pay.

I don't think I need you to lecture me.

 

So you DO agree that making assumptions based on a single impression often leads to poor results. Thought so!

 

ETA: bringing up the iPods was an illustration of assumption-making; Not a judgment on how you spend your own money.

[Tweedling]

Look, when they announce Social Security is going tits-up, I am going to riot like a Greek Frenchman whose just been told he can't retire until he's 44 and he has to pay retroactive tuition.

Seriously? You know it's inevitable, right? Simple math tells me it's a pipe dream.

This whole thing in Europe seems to be nothing more than governments realizing you can't give people things like free health care and free education without something failing. Instead of rioting about steep increases maybe they should consider the health care they get. This type of entitlement breeds spoiled children. You can point out countries like Denmark and Sweden but it wasn't very long ago we were looking at the EU and admiring the "free" education. I'm not trying to sound like a dick but shit it doesn't take a genius to know you can't give give and give without receiving. Which brings me to my point about Social Security, the cash rolling out far exceeds the cash rolling in.

I'm afraid it's much more than tits-up.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Seriously? You know it's inevitable, right? Simple math tells me it's a pipe dream.

 

Yes. He will "seriously" riot like a Greek Frenchman who can't retire at the agecof 44.

 

These people ARE paying for a service they won't use on account of poor state budgeting. I don't agree with tbe rioting, but I can't blame anyone for feeling salty. They weren't getting something dor nothing; their taxes were subsidizing it and now they can't.

 

And it can take a lot more - or less - to create a spoiled populus. I wouldn't say the US is the poster child of people who know the value ofvhard workbb

[cryptique]

I'm not trying to sound like a dick but shit it doesn't take a genius to know you can't give give and give without receiving.

Awesome! So you agree that in the U.S. we need to stop the mindless tax cuts and find ways to increase revenue!

[austrya]

You know what's gonna happen if I don't get a scholarship sometime soon? I'm going to vent about it on some internet message board, that's what.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Seriously? Really seriously?

[Synthesizer Patel]

Seriously? You know it's inevitable, right? Simple math tells me it's a pipe dream.

This whole thing in Europe seems to be nothing more than governments realizing you can't give people things like free health care and free education without something failing. Instead of rioting about steep increases maybe they should consider the health care they get. This type of entitlement breeds spoiled children. You can point out countries like Denmark and Sweden but it wasn't very long ago we were looking at the EU and admiring the "free" education. I'm not trying to sound like a dick but shit it doesn't take a genius to know you can't give give and give without receiving. Which brings me to my point about Social Security, the cash rolling out far exceeds the cash rolling in.

I'm afraid it's much more than tits-up.

 

we've had free health care in the uk since the end of the second world war, and affordable schooling for everyone so it's not a sudden failour in either of these things. the failour has arisen through following the wrong economic model for growth. it's these things that have failed and now they're trying to find the money to bail them out through cut-backs. i can't see how you can see a link with "government hand-outs" and the current economic situation - what specifically went wrong in this sector that resulted in the situation we're all in now?

[Synthesizer Patel]

Do they not have renting in England?

 

who in your model of the property ladder are these young people renting from? someone has to own the house. if all the young people rent then the property ladder will collapse as you need first time buyers to buy off of you for you to go up the scale, and so on and so on. remove a rung and it doesn't work. buying to let is obviously the first thing that suffers because owning 2 or more houses becomes a major problem as house prices fall - so when you're left with your one house it becomes a bit diffcult to rent it out to someone else, unless you're happy to camp out in the garden.

[Tweedling]

Awesome! So you agree that in the U.S. we need to stop the mindless tax cuts and find ways to increase revenue!

Don't forget about mindless spending and mindless bills becoming laws that no one in congress has read. (chicken or the egg?)

 

we've had free health care in the uk since the end of the second world war, and affordable schooling for everyone so it's not a sudden failour in either of these things. the failour has arisen through following the wrong economic model for growth. it's these things that have failed and now they're trying to find the money to bail them out through cut-backs. i can't see how you can see a link with "government hand-outs" and the current economic situation - what specifically went wrong in this sector that resulted in the situation we're all in now?

Listen, I'm not economist and if I could answer your question I'm sure I wouldn't be in the occupation I'm in now. However, it doesn't mean I don't know how to budget. If you're spending more than you make cut back on spending! Thank you, thank you very much.

[cryptique]

Don't forget about mindless spending and mindless bills becoming laws that no one in congress has read. (chicken or the egg?)

OK, sorry, I've steered this off topic toward domestic concerns. This is supposed to be about Europe. But what's happening there is pertinent to our own predicament. And so I'll reply.

 

No one said Congress doesn't need a good kick in the pants. And yes, we should cut lots from the budget (starting with the military). Cutting back on wasteful spending should be our number one budgetary priority. But we still need higher taxes, especially with the state of the country's infrastructure. The bridge collapse in the Twin Cities was a warning shot, as was the 2003 blackout across the northeast. We built a new bridge and we slapped a Band-Aid on the power grid, but we didn't do much to address the desperate condition of the infrastructure across the nation. Things will get much, much worse unless we stop the tax-cutting madness and make a serious commitment to repairing the infrastructure -- a process that could virtually end unemployment, at least in the short term.

 

I have no problem with the concept of "small government," but many of those who expend the most energy extolling its virtues seem to have only one idea in how to bring it about: cut taxes. That's their answer to every problem. Problems with excessive earmarks? Cut taxes. Don't do anything serious to address the source of the problem (campaign rhetoric is one thing; taking action is quite another, as we're seeing right now in the U.S. Congress). Nope, just cut taxes and hope that changes behavior in Washington (not to mention the state legislatures). Instead, cutting taxes does little to curtail pork-barrel spending, but it has a devastating effect on vital government services, notably the maintenance and improvement of the nation's infrastructure and the education of the nation's children.

 

Pork-barrel spending isn't a Democratic or Republican vice -- it's business as usual for both parties. You might say it's one of the last remaining examples of bipartisanship. But starving the government of tax revenue is not the way to fix the problem, because the more you reduce revenues, the more that wasteful spending crowds out the spending that the nation and its citizens truly need. Instead we continue our wasteful ways but deny funding to the kinds of projects that even the most anti-government libertarians would support.

 

Considering the infrastructure meltdown that we're facing, it's simply not enough to merely cut wasteful spending. We need to drastically increase tax revenues while simultaneously tackling the problem of wasteful spending (earmarks, unnecessary military appropriations, etc.). That includes a crackdown on tax avoidance, especially aimed at corporations. It means NOT extending the Bush-era tax cuts (oops, too late). Ideally, it should lead to an overhaul of the tax code that simplifies it for all taxpayers, placing less emphasis on income and payroll taxes and more on consumption taxes (such as the VAT used in many other countries). But make no mistake, unless we get serious about stripping wasteful spending out of government (good luck with that) -- and even if we do -- revenues must increase to provide us with the necessary ammunition to deal with the impending infrastructure catastrophe, and that means higher taxes in some form.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

So you DO agree that making assumptions based on a single impression often leads to poor results. Thought so!

 

ETA: bringing up the iPods was an illustration of assumption-making; Not a judgment on how you spend your own money.

 

No.

You crossed a line and made a personal attack/reference. This wasn't personal until you did your usual shit and made it so.

[Guest Speed Racer]

My usual shit? When have I ever personally attacked you? How was that, at all, a personal attack?

 

You called kids you didn't know spoiled. I asked if I could do the same and you said no. I agreed, because it's not polite to do so.

[ikol]

who in your model of the property ladder are these young people renting from? someone has to own the house. if all the young people rent then the property ladder will collapse as you need first time buyers to buy off of you for you to go up the scale, and so on and so on. remove a rung and it doesn't work. buying to let is obviously the first thing that suffers because owning 2 or more houses becomes a major problem as house prices fall - so when you're left with your one house it becomes a bit diffcult to rent it out to someone else, unless you're happy to camp out in the garden.

 

It's pretty simple. If you can afford the debt that comes with buying a house, go ahead and buy one. If you're tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds, euros, etc.) in student debt, rent until you pay off that debt. The younger people are renting from older people that have paid off their debt. And apartments are always an option.

 

OK, sorry, I've steered this off topic toward domestic concerns. This is supposed to be about Europe. But what's happening there is pertinent to our own predicament. And so I'll reply.

 

No one said Congress doesn't need a good kick in the pants. And yes, we should cut lots from the budget (starting with the military). Cutting back on wasteful spending should be our number one budgetary priority. But we still need higher taxes, especially with the state of the country's infrastructure. The bridge collapse in the Twin Cities was a warning shot, as was the 2003 blackout across the northeast. We built a new bridge and we slapped a Band-Aid on the power grid, but we didn't do much to address the desperate condition of the infrastructure across the nation. Things will get much, much worse unless we stop the tax-cutting madness and make a serious commitment to repairing the infrastructure -- a process that could virtually end unemployment, at least in the short term.

 

I have no problem with the concept of "small government," but many of those who expend the most energy extolling its virtues seem to have only one idea in how to bring it about: cut taxes. That's their answer to every problem. Problems with excessive earmarks? Cut taxes. Don't do anything serious to address the source of the problem (campaign rhetoric is one thing; taking action is quite another, as we're seeing right now in the U.S. Congress). Nope, just cut taxes and hope that changes behavior in Washington (not to mention the state legislatures). Instead, cutting taxes does little to curtail pork-barrel spending, but it has a devastating effect on vital government services, notably the maintenance and improvement of the nation's infrastructure and the education of the nation's children.

 

Pork-barrel spending isn't a Democratic or Republican vice -- it's business as usual for both parties. You might say it's one of the last remaining examples of bipartisanship. But starving the government of tax revenue is not the way to fix the problem, because the more you reduce revenues, the more that wasteful spending crowds out the spending that the nation and its citizens truly need. Instead we continue our wasteful ways but deny funding to the kinds of projects that even the most anti-government libertarians would support.

 

Considering the infrastructure meltdown that we're facing, it's simply not enough to merely cut wasteful spending. We need to drastically increase tax revenues while simultaneously tackling the problem of wasteful spending (earmarks, unnecessary military appropriations, etc.). That includes a crackdown on tax avoidance, especially aimed at corporations. It means NOT extending the Bush-era tax cuts (oops, too late). Ideally, it should lead to an overhaul of the tax code that simplifies it for all taxpayers, placing less emphasis on income and payroll taxes and more on consumption taxes (such as the VAT used in many other countries). But make no mistake, unless we get serious about stripping wasteful spending out of government (good luck with that) -- and even if we do -- revenues must increase to provide us with the necessary ammunition to deal with the impending infrastructure catastrophe, and that means higher taxes in some form.

 

Good points, and I mostly agree with you. However, wasteful spending is not the problem. It's the routine stuff (Social Security, Medicare, and defense) that's the problem. Taxes should probably be raised for the time being, but only so that we don't go bankrupt before spending cuts take effect and only if you raise taxes for everyone. We can't sustain a system in which the majority essentially votes to take money from the minority. People need to realize that SS/Medicare were meant to be safety nets, not entitlements. You're not putting money away so you can retire at 65. You're insuring yourself against the possibility that you might live past the age at which you can support yourself, which means the retirement age has to go up to at least 75.

[ikol]

No.

You crossed a line and made a personal attack/reference. This wasn't personal until you did your usual shit and made it so.

 

Dude, lighten up. A caveman from an annoying commercial is arguing politics with a cat in a Santa hat. Nothing should be taken too seriously in that situation.

[Guest Speed Racer]

You're not putting money away so you can retire at 65. You're insuring yourself against the possibility that you might live past the age at which you can support yourself, which means the retirement age has to go up to at least 75.

 

I'm starting to like you, ikol. Good points all, but I didn't want to quote all of it - except for this part.

 

You need to be in pretty good physical and mental condition at 75 to be working, which unfortunately is a trait of the upper/middle class that the working class can't really share. My lady's ma works in a pretty physical capacity right now, and she won't physically be able to do her job (or any other that invovles any thing more than sitting and smiling) past her mid-60s. Other factors prohibit her from working a desk job. She'll probably live for a good long while past that, though.

 

If you're going to raise the retirement age, you'd better be prepared to dole out more disability payments for people who really can't work.

[Synthesizer Patel]

It's pretty simple. If you can afford the debt that comes with buying a house, go ahead and buy one. If you're tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds, euros, etc.) in student debt, rent until you pay off that debt. The younger people are renting from older people that have paid off their debt. And apartments are always an option.

 

that is simple, you're right. trouble is no young person can afford to "buy" a house - they have to take out mortages. for them to be able to "buy" a house, when they can afford it, the housing prices would have to fall to a level that actually reflects their worth. this would mean that the people who "own" (although in the current climate - they don't "own" they are still mortaged) these first time homes would be lossing out on what they bought/mortaged the property for, and what that new market value would be. this will have a knock on effect to the next rung of the property ladder, and so on and so on.

 

i'm not entirely sure why you don't understand this.

 

i mean, for me, i'd love to see what you're saying happen, because it really is the only sensible way to go. but, it would mean a massive global economic collapse - so i don't think many people want to go down that route at the moment.

[ikol]

I'm starting to like you, ikol. Good points all, but I didn't want to quote all of it - except for this part.

 

You need to be in pretty good physical and mental condition at 75 to be working, which unfortunately is a trait of the upper/middle class that the working class can't really share. My lady's ma works in a pretty physical capacity right now, and she won't physically be able to do her job (or any other that invovles any thing more than sitting and smiling) past her mid-60s. Other factors prohibit her from working a desk job. She'll probably live for a good long while past that, though.

 

If you're going to raise the retirement age, you'd better be prepared to dole out more disability payments for people who really can't work.

 

The retirement age will have to be raised gradually, so people can adjust their saving and spending patterns accordingly. Personally, I at least plan to be semi-retired by my early 60s if I can afford to save enough. People currently in their 50s and 60s have always operated on the assumption that they'll get benefits when they're 65, so they can't be expected to wait till they're 75. Anyone currently entering the job market with that assumption is a fool. And the disability system needs serious reform. Doctors, not bureaucrats need to be deciding who qualifies.

 

that is simple, you're right. trouble is no young person can afford to "buy" a house - they have to take out mortages. for them to be able to "buy" a house, when they can afford it, the housing prices would have to fall to a level that actually reflects their worth. this would mean that the people who "own" (although in the current climate - they don't "own" they are still mortaged) these first time homes would be lossing out on what they bought/mortaged the property for, and what that new market value would be. this will have a knock on effect to the next rung of the property ladder, and so on and so on.

 

i'm not entirely sure why you don't understand this.

 

i mean, for me, i'd love to see what you're saying happen, because it really is the only sensible way to go. but, it would mean a massive global economic collapse - so i don't think many people want to go down that route at the moment.

 

I don't think you're getting my point. By "buy" I meant "take out a mortgage". I thought it was a given that very few people pay the full amount up front. My point was that it might be a good idea to rent a house or apartment while you pay off your student debt instead of taking on a mortgage at the same time. Is your argument that not enough people would own houses/apartment complexes to rent them out if that were the case?

[Guest Speed Racer]

that is simple, you're right. trouble is no young person can afford to "buy" a house - they have to take out mortages. for them to be able to "buy" a house, when they can afford it, the housing prices would have to fall to a level that actually reflects their worth. this would mean that the people who "own" (although in the current climate - they don't "own" they are still mortaged) these first time homes would be lossing out on what they bought/mortaged the property for, and what that new market value would be. this will have a knock on effect to the next rung of the property ladder, and so on and so on.

 

Generally speaking, no one ever buys a house in cash. The general idea (correct me if I'm wrong) is 20% down, then you make the monthly payments. People seem to have trouble with both parts around here.

 

People can get home loans that are WAY outside their means. Around here, you can get an awesome three bedroom home for $200,000-$250,000, and a do-able one for $150,000ish. An unemployed friend of mine and her grad school husband were approved for $250,000. That's obscene to begin with, but it was also way outside their means. But they could get it, and they could try their damnedest to pay it off.

 

To "buy" a home responsibly, in my opinion, means to get a short-term mortgage on a house you can afford the payments for, after you put 20% down. You can't really afford to do that if you have a household debt of $200,000 in student loans. Many, many people think they can, but they can't. A lot of people do that because they want a house to raise children in, which is a whole other can of worms I won't even get into (home debt + school debt + cost of children = hot mess).

[ikol]

Yeah, I can't believe how many people in my med school class (where average student debt is ~$125,000) rushed into buying a house as soon as they graduated.

[Synthesizer Patel]

I don't think you're getting my point. By "buy" I meant "take out a mortgage". I thought it was a given that very few people pay the full amount up front. My point was that it might be a good idea to rent a house or apartment while you pay off your student debt instead of taking on a mortgage at the same time. Is your argument that not enough people would own houses/apartment complexes to rent them out if that were the case?

 

my point is that if people took out a mortage that they could afford in terms of giving them some leeway if times become tough (which is what has happened at the moment), then that bottom rung of the housing market would not get the input it needs to sustain the rest of the ladder. it's just not possible to sustain a housing boom without people buying/taking out a mortage on things that they can't really afford. the culture that has grown in the housing market is to buy a property that you have no real intention of making your permanent home, under the premiss that you will sell it at a profit, buy a larger house and be able to increase your mortage debt, as the market value of your new property is greater in the eyes of the bank.

 

you can't suddenly have all the young people renting property, because it breaks the chain in the ladder, and the market becomes stagnant.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Yeah, I can't believe how many people in my med school class (where average student debt is ~$125,000) rushed into buying a house as soon as they graduated.

 

My lady and I joke that our first home will be one of our friends' foreclosures.