The world financial crisis

[cooperlola]

...is clearly hitting hard, especially if you are already rich.

Sorry, but even as a motor racing fan and LM freak,  I find THIS astonishing and somewhat sick.

[Russethouse]

Recession isn't always bad for everyone....

One of my favorite films though....[:)]

[Chancer]

You have got ot be happy for the now middle aged 12 year old Timothy Davies, not only did he win the competition, and I bet in those days it was a lot harder than the current ones (Le mans was a film about horse racing, motor racing or snail racing? for example) but he also clearly really valued the prize having treasured it all this time and even added to its provenance.

Its not as if he was selling his grand-fathers medals is it?

As for the muppet that paid $800000, well maybe he is shrewd, at the end of the current finnacial meltdown all those dollars probably would not buy him a sack of potatoes whereas he could swop the race suit for them [Www]

[just john]

More likely - put 'em in a museum/And charge the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em - perhaps located in Switzerland where a new museum will also house allegedly the  -Austin-Healey Le-Mans-disaster 100S   (meanwhile, despite it's auction price of  £843000, that has been despatched to Australia for a £150K rebuild). -  I'm sure there will enough people visiting to recoup the capital sum.[I]

[Frederick]

It seems as far as history goes somewhat unfortunate .. ( and perhaps we should feel sorry for them ) a lot of todays EU polititians wiill only be remembered for being at the wheel when the crash occured . I think some have already come to that conclusion and know they will get the blame for whatever is about to occur and are only trying to delay that days arrival

Little comment seems to be being made about those who against the advice of many who warned that the Euro would fail rushed into it and its expansion for their own political ends . Who will get the blame when it all goes wrong ?... Those who made the bad decision in taking their country in ...Or those who after being in have failed to make it work

[cooperlola]

It's my belief that the roots of problems begin long before they fully bloom so blame is rarely laid where it should be, and when it is it only seems self-serving if it's being laid by a politician.  As with all things in life, I also believe that blaming any individual is a pointless waste of time.  The only thing to do is to find the cause and do something about it, to repair the damage, not spend money figuring out who amongst the (often dead and/or retired) political, business and economic communities was to blame.

There was a fascinating film on More 4 recently about Alan Greedspan et al (somebody on here recommended  and it was excellent), pointing out that America's wealth is becomming more and more concentrated within a smaller and smaller number of people.  Probably one of whom bought the item in question!  I certainly can't see the problem with selling it, just the obscenity of the price somebody was prepared to pay.  This autumn also saw record breaking prices being paid  for unproven thoroughbreds whilst the sport of racing at the other end of the food chain struggles for enough money to pay the poor oiks who get up at 5.30 every mornng to shovel their sh&t.

[YCCMB]

There was an interesting article in the papers the other day about the (fairly) obscene prices achieved at auction by Elizabeth Taylor's bling, as well...

...and I read an interesting article about Andy Warhol's art whilst on a plane last week, which proffered the opinion that the prices achieved at auction by his work are actually controlled by a very small number of collectors who between them own the bulk of his work, and that if they lost interest or decided to sell, his work would plummet in value.

Where's me shovel? :-))

[cooperlola]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]the prices achieved at auction by his work are actually controlled by a very small number of collectors who between them own the bulk of his work, and that if they lost interest or decided to sell, his work would plummet in value. [/quote]My economics education ended at O level and it was all Keynes in those days but this seemed to be the crux of the depression argument.  As the wealth is concentrated more and more, thus markets shrink because the uber-rich can only have a finite amount of basic stuff (food, houses, staff, whatever) before they stop spending on them and the residual money is either banked or spent on things which don't require vast numbers of people to produce them (like works of art and old overalls).  Thus the more wealth is concentrated, the deeper the recession.  I put it badly (and too briefly to do the film justice) but I think I got the crux.  I must dig out the thread!

[Russethouse]

>>and I read an interesting article about Andy Warhol's art whilst on a plane last week, which proffered the opinion that the prices achieved at auction by his work are actually controlled by a very small number of collectors who between them own the bulk of his work, and that if they lost interest or decided to sell, his work would plummet in value<<.

Thats pretty much the case with many 'collectibles or art' a few people can afford to pay top dollar and for a while they do, but if one drops out the prices reached drop, and that in itself can herald a decrease in interest....

[Thibault]

[quote user="cooperlola"][My economics education ended at O level and it was all Keynes in those days but this seemed to be the crux of the depression argument.  As the wealth is concentrated more and more, thus markets shrink because the uber-rich can only have a finite amount of basic stuff (food, houses, staff, whatever) before they stop spending on them and the residual money is either banked or spent on things which don't require vast numbers of people to produce them (like works of art and old overalls).  Thus the more wealth is concentrated, the deeper the recession.  [/quote]

 

But there's also this wonderful thing called the "multiplier effect" - rather like a stone being dropped in a pond and the ripples spread out from it.  If the uber-rich, as well as the not-quite-so-rich spend money (on anything - basics, art, cars, holidays) then that money spreads through the economy rather like the ripples in the pond.  This has always been the argument for spending on infra-structure, too.  So, currently, it is important that someone spends and spends quite a bit of money - that will help the general economy.  This is sometimes used as an argument for "big City bonuses" because the money (or at least part of it) goes back into the general economy in the form of spending.

One of the current issues is the reduction in government spending (EZ as well as UK) and what the economy needs is spending to fuel growth - so may be it is down to the uber-rich to spend us out of the mire.   [;-)]

[EuroTrashII]

This argument doesn't make any sense at all. As Cooperlola says, there is only so much money that one person can spend. The uber-rich don't spend their millions on everyday stuff, they invest it or buy rich kid stuff that only rich kids buy. If on the other hand the money were distributed more equitably amongst the general population, THEN it would get spent by people on the normal everyday things that they need, THEN the general standard of living would rise, THEN high street shops wouldn't close and farmers would get fair prices etc etc etc.

[Quillan]

Money and religion are the worlds two greatest evils, we should do away with both, only then can we really move forward.

[pachapapa]

I shall be this week avoiding money & religion.

I shall be incurring a normal weekly expenditure and not participating in the morally obscene largesse associated with the birth of a "minor prophet".

[just john]

[quote user="Quillan"]Money and religion are the worlds two greatest evils, we should do away with both, only then can we really move forward.[/quote]

I see you're a realist Q, Don't spend too much this Christmas[;-)]

 

[Thibault]

[quote user="EuroTrashII"]This argument doesn't make any sense at all. As Cooperlola says, there is only so much money that one person can spend. The uber-rich don't spend their millions on everyday stuff, they invest it or buy rich kid stuff that only rich kids buy. If on the other hand the money were distributed more equitably amongst the general population, THEN it would get spent by people on the normal everyday things that they need, THEN the general standard of living would rise, THEN high street shops wouldn't close and farmers would get fair prices etc etc etc.[/quote]

 

Yes, but even rich kids buy "ordinary" things - then the money gets rippled out.  One thing about the multiplier effect is that it is not just the initial "spend" we count - it multiplies - hence its name.  Simple example - uber-rich employ staff and pay their wages.  The staff take their wages and spend them in local shops.  The local shops sell stuff, buy in more stuff from suppliers.  Suppliers sell more stuff etc etc.  Thus the original uber-rich "spend" has passed through lots of stages, increasing economic activity as it grows.

[Salty Sam]

[quote user="pachapapa"]

I shall be this week avoiding money & religion.

I shall be incurring a normal weekly expenditure and not participating in the morally obscene largesse associated with the birth of a "minor prophet". [/quote]

Oh please PPP, don't sound so depressing. You go ahead and celebrate the birth of the "minor prophet".

I'm sure if we'd have known earlier, we could have all clubbed together and bought you a birthday card![:D] 

[EuroTrashII]

Oh right. So the uber rich do manage to spend it all. They don't put their bonuses into investment portfolios that sit there doing nobody any good but themselves. Silly me, I always assumed that when you see financiers and suchlike on the UK rich list with a few million to their name, they have a bit left over from paying the staff, like the odd million or so that somehow hasn't found its way back into the UK economy.

[Quillan]

[quote user="just john "]

[quote user="Quillan"]Money and religion are the worlds two greatest evils, we should do away with both, only then can we really move forward.[/quote]

I see you're a realist Q, Don't spend too much this Christmas[;-)]

[/quote]

Yeah, and meanwhile in the real world but it would be a nice thought. [:D]

It's not so much as redistributing the wealth but what about redistributing food. Is man's inhumanity so low that whilst a lot of us walk round the supermarkets 'admiring' all the food on display that others starve. I am sure that rather destroying some crops they could be sent to other places in the world where people are starving to death. Mind you I saw the other day (somewhere, I can't remember where) that by 2050 the planet will no longer be able to feed it's self entirely. Makes you wonder when you see the starving on TV at present whats going on. This year again we will be inviting somebody to Christmas dinner, well actually we have already invited them, a little old lady in the village who will be 'home alone' this year. We try to do this every year, either somebody old on their own or a poor person because years ago I realised it was a bit obscene throwing so many leftovers in the bin at Christmas. My attitude is that we have it and they don't so why not share.

[Quillan]

[quote user="EuroTrashII"]Oh right. So the uber rich do manage to spend it all. They don't put their bonuses into investment portfolios that sit there doing nobody any good but themselves. Silly me, I always assumed that when you see financiers and suchlike on the UK rich list with a few million to their name, they have a bit left over from paying the staff, like the odd million or so that somehow hasn't found its way back into the UK economy.[/quote]

Well there is brighter side. Most of these top dogs get their bonuses and hand outs mainly in the form of shares which they cannot immediately sell, I think it's two years minimum before they can. What with the markets going down hill their shares are probably worth a lot less now.

I couldn't help noticing that there are actually very few Brits in top 100 rich list for 2011.

http://www.therichest.org/nation/sunday-times-rich-list-2011/

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Quillan"][

It's not so much as redistributing the wealth but what about redistributing food. Is man's inhumanity so low that whilst a lot of us walk round the supermarkets 'admiring' all the food on display that others starve. I am sure that rather destroying some crops they could be sent to other places in the world where people are starving to death. Mind you I saw the other day (somewhere, I can't remember where) that by 2050 the planet will no longer be able to feed it's self entirely. Makes you wonder when you see the starving on TV at present whats going on. This year again we will be inviting somebody to Christmas dinner, well actually we have already invited them, a little old lady in the village who will be 'home alone' this year. We try to do this every year, either somebody old on their own or a poor person because years ago I realised it was a bit obscene throwing so many leftovers in the bin at Christmas. My attitude is that we have it and they don't so why not share.

[/quote]Often it's not even about redistributing food, but allowing those who can be self sufficient to do so.  Instead it's often more "profitable" to produce more stuff for western consumers with harmful effect.  There was a fascinating film recently about Jean Root and her battle against the flower farmers who systematically destroyed the eco-system of Lake Naivasha.  A very difficult one, this, Quillan, but certainly one which anybody with kids needs to thing about seriously!  (And those who don't, of course, but it's more significant if those you care about have to face a bleak future.)

[cooperlola]

The Flaw was the name of the film about Greedspan which I was trying to remember earlier. 

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1/2636704/ShowPost.aspx

[just john]

I'm sure Manon des Sources would agree; are the flowers not identified as produce of Kenya? Perhaps we could boycott the agricultural produce of Kenya, would that stop the trade? err what would the consequences be then?

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="just john "]

I'm sure Manon des Sources would agree; are the flowers not identified as produce of Kenya? Perhaps we could boycott the agricultural produce of Kenya, would that stop the trade? err what would the consequences be then?

 

[/quote]The problem of course is that the people who now live there rely on the flowers for a livelihood so you'd only be punishing the worst off the short term, imho, not solving the underlying issue.  I'm not a great fan of boycots for that reason.

[idun]

I try not to buy anything from other than the country that I am in or an EU country or an old colony and in that order.

Flowers from Kenya, no, flowers from England or Holland, never any where else. And there was silly me thinking that Kenya could grow proper food with all that water the flowers need, food perhaps that Africa needs. But where is common sense when business in involved.

 

[just john]

[quote user="cooperlola"]   the people who now live there rely on the flowers for a livelihood so you'd only be punishing the worst off the short term, imho, not solving the underlying issue.   .[/quote]

That was kindof my point really, the problem is in their hands, if they grew what was best for them they probably would not have the income they need, market led; An alternative perhaps is do as Mugabe did and repossess the farms for the people, oooppss that didn't work either, I do believe the markets will play out eventually, controls don't seem to work.