Generation 'Y' hooked on credit:

[Dan_]

Alway remeber that the wealth you have created, has only been created by others giving up theirs!

Kris,

I'm confused can you explain the above statement? The most common way for people to create wealth is to exchange their time (which has a monetary value) for money. This transaction only takes place if both parties agree on the outcome.

Who is "giving up" wealth in this scenario?

 

[tech/a]

How then does small business grow to large business.
Thus creating employment for 1000s--if there are not excesses to allow for expansion?
If the world was filled with mediocrity then you would have no growth at all in both mind and finance.
If you wish to retire at 55-60 how much do you think you need?
If you dont have an excess--what do you suggest?--government hand out?
If your spouse need sepcialist care EG a Dementia patient---where would those funds come from?
If you have ailing parents who may not have taken advantage of opportunity's as they came along---let the government pick up the tab?
When they dont just shrug your shoulders and say sorry cant help.

When you know of GENUINE cases of hardship and you are in the position to help without the recipient being aware---who but those with excess can apply?

The "tall poppy syndrome " is alive and well in Australia and right here on this forum.
Laughing loudest and even wishing failure of those who have created success.
But even when and if they fall they will have only fell to the level of those who knock,and they will have something that the knockers can never attain.
EXPERIENCE

Frankly if my world falls in a heap and I have nothing in the end---I dont care---what a fantastic journey it is and has been!

In every society there needs to be leaders and followers,life has its way of filtration.

 

[tech/a]

Demand creates excess in ALL things including wealth.

 

[Milk Man]

If everyone just took their fair share and sang coombaya that would be great. That's pure communism. But here in Australia we live in the real world.
People aren't all nice.

Most of us realise that the best way to have a fulfilling life is to make the world a better place; there are always those that don't though. Some will take and take and take. You can't beat them by taking your fair share and doing charity work or giving spin-offs from a modest trading regime. You have to maximise your own returns first. Once you've accumulated enough to give substantially and are able to keep doing so then you start to make a difference.

Please use your heads people: a loser mentality doesn't do you or anyone who needs help any good.

 

[krisbarry]

Ohhh well, if you can't beat them join em' right...I am going to take the greed approach now too, and not answer any of the questions raised above...

Who really cares?

I am too busy making money today and too greedy to even think of anyone elses needs, views, wants, desires...

Ohhh god....I forgot I was posting a share discussion board, these people only seem interested in making money. right.

Each to their own I guess.

seems like the stuff everyone else attitude is alive and well, not the tall poppy syndrome as described!

 

[tech/a]

Strange that you cant fathom a blending of wealth and conservatism.

That creation of excess must be at the expense of something/someone when infact it is often quite the opposite---new opportunities abound.
Your cup is always half empty not half full.
Take Gates and Microsoft---1000s new jobs and realisation of many dreams.
Murdoch,Packer,Gerry Harvey,Gordon Pickard the list goes on.
Their entrepenuerism has created a demand that continues in spite of the creators.

Would the world be a better place without them?
Do you have to be even remotely like them---of course not.

There are 2 sides to every coin---there is a time when you'll be sick of being tossed around---choose then whether your a head or a tail and be satisfied with YOUR lot.

 

[Happy]

Best if everybody could work on him/herself and not run around pointing finger at everybody else.

Of course some people need to be stopped, but not everybody who creates wealth does it in illegal manner.

There are numbers of genuinely hard working people who achieve their targets by hard work, sacrifice and determination.
Even our Anita Bell didn’t have Tim Tams for several years.

 

[krisbarry]

Take Gates and Microsoft---1000s new jobs and realisation of many dreams.
.

Ahhh but what did he do.....made everyone that bought a pc, and turned it on, was forced to see microsoft products on their computer.

Consumers had no option when buying a complete computer package, it was supplied.

Hence microsoft was sued and (Microsoft) Bill Gates was fined squillions.

This is a classic example of corporate greed at its finest.

Mass sackings occurred and the share price went south!

Microsoft is another example of outsourcing its workforce to India. Computer programmers getting paid crap!

Bill Gates is nothing more than a corporate criminal doing it all legally!

Too much greed, I say!

 

[Milk Man]

Bill Gates is nothing more than a corporate criminal doing it all legally!

Too much greed, I say!

He also gives a great big wad to charity. That's basically all his wife does; find good causes and give them massive amounts of cash. And he can do that forever no matter how many programs he sells. Why? Because he didn't aim for mediocrity. Do you think Microsoft would have got off the ground if he gave his savings to the red cross? What difference would it have made if he decided to give his cash away too soon? Squat! He now can and does make a massive difference to masses of under-priveleged people. As for being a criminal, its just sour grapes to detract from such genius.

As for helping people; you can't rely on everyone else. Not everyone will take only what they need. What difference will it make if you give $100 to charity a week? Put that into a trading regime and keep doing so until you can give $10000 a week and not worry about it. Do like Bill Gates and maximise your earnings so that you can make a diiference.

 

[cocacowla]

Hi all, this is my first post so be nice
I just thought I'd chime in and give another opinion of a younger person- im 23.

Yes a lot of young people are not so much anti-wealth, but they dont want to have their lives ruled by a quest for money. As kerosams story showed, its not really cool to want to become rich.

But I think there is a huge hypocracy in the way they go about this. They sort of think money isnt what makes you happy, so I wont save it, but then go and spend the money on stupid sh*t like an overpriced car or gadjets or whatever as soon as they can.

I guess I've figured that what would make me happy is to not have to work anymore, so Ive sort of been starting to work towards that.

Most kids grow up being told that money isnt everything, theres more to life blah blah, and theyre listening.

regarding the anti-capitalist, give more to the poor talk-
This generation is vastly more anti-capitalist than previous ones.I sort of agree with what krisbarry is saying, the way Im thinking at the moment, I would feel slightly guilty if I was very rich and didnt give anything to charity.

There will always be rich people and poor people, the gap between the wealthy and poor is what we should be worried about.

 

[Smurf1976]

Alway remeber that the wealth you have created, has only been created by others giving up theirs!

Unless you are in some kind of PRODUCTIVE business such as farming, mining / smelting, manufacturing etc. The sorts of businesses that I have spent literally thousands of hours trying to assist, mostly through my energy knowledge.

Your point is absolutely correct though when applied to anything non-productive, which is what most of the public seems to want more of (because anything productive is too polluting / ugly / noisy etc).

 

[Smurf1976]

Strange that you cant fathom a blending of wealth and conservatism.

That creation of excess must be at the expense of something/someone when infact it is often quite the opposite---new opportunities abound.
Your cup is always half empty not half full.
Take Gates and Microsoft---1000s new jobs and realisation of many dreams.
Murdoch,Packer,Gerry Harvey,Gordon Pickard the list goes on.
Their entrepenuerism has created a demand that continues in spite of the creators.

Would the world be a better place without them?
Do you have to be even remotely like them---of course not.

There are 2 sides to every coin---there is a time when you'll be sick of being tossed around---choose then whether your a head or a tail and be satisfied with YOUR lot.

An outstanding "community" example comes to mind. The example is very off topic but hopefully it will serve to make the point that wealth can be created for the benefit of all rather than one simply taking it from another.

In 1893 the Launceston City Council (Tas) decided to do something previously unheard of. Public electrification. Sure, plenty of places had electric trams and street lights and even Hobart introduced electric trams that year.

But the LCC had a much bigger plan. Electricity for the masses. And so Tasmania's hydro-electric age, which came to dominate practically everything, had begun. And on the 10th of December 1895 at 8pm the first turbine at Duck Reach was switched on...

By 1910 the privately owned Hydro-Electric Power and Metallurgical Company unveiled its plans for what at the time was a massive project. A major hydro-electric scheme, carbide plant and zinc smelter. Despite all manner of financial and physical difficulties, it was built. By this time the state government was in on the potential of the then new technology - electricity - to radically transform life as it then was.

By the 1930's hydro-electricity was the centrepiece of plans to lift the state out of the depression. And not just electricity but locally produced paper, another world first using hardwood. Brains and money, both government and private, at work for the benefit of all.

Forward to the 1950's and the Hydro had not only thousands of employees but even had it's own offices overseas to attract the necessary migrant labour. No longer a purely economic transformation, but a cultural one too. And directly related industry was employing literally tens of thousands of workers in a state that still has less than half a million people.

And today there are still many thousands employed as a direct result of those brave early decisions taken in defiance of the Commonwealth who said it was too big a risk and the disbelievers in the other states. Around two thirds of Tasmania's overseas exports to this day are a consequence of these earlier decisions. And there wouldn't be too many people in Tasmania who don't know someone who has worked for the Hydro, the zinc works (Zinifex), Norske Skog, TEMCO etc.

And millions of tonnes of coal are saved each and every year through the use of renewable hydro-electricity.

And it all started because someone saw the potential to make a better future not only for themselves, but for others too. Literally tens if not (over the years) hundreds of thousands of workers trained and employed. Food on the table for ordinary families because a few with enough money, brains and a positive attitude took the risks to make it happen.

And by the way, the history of the Victorian power industry in the Latrobe Valley is similarly a tale of risks taken for public benefit. Again it was a few with the brains and, in this case government money, that made it happen. Light and power for all and employment (direct and indirect) for literally millions over the years.

Real wealth created by productive industry. Not one getting rich at the expense of others but rather a case of everyone better off through their own contribution be it capital, knowledge or physical labour. And we wouldn't be sitting here right now on the internet if nobody had taken those risks.

 

[Hanrahan]

Why not start on something easy like the meaning of life and progress to wealth creation after we have solved the first enigma?

 

[krisbarry]

Gerry Harvey, of Harvey Normans, another fine example of greed/wealth.

His company thrives of the success of the "buy now pay later scheme", this same scheme is backed by the GE money lending group.

The GE money group lends money to customers of Harvey Norman at a whopping 27.5% interest rate.

You go into his stores wanting to buy a T.V. and you end up with the T.V. and a GE credit card with far more credit avaliable that what was originally required. Hmmm wonder why that happens. LOL

So really is Gerry Harvey a bright success or is he just bleeding the youth by offering excessive credit at filthy interest rates.

If it wasn't for GE, Gerry Harvey, would be nothing!

 

[Hanrahan]

I have just finalised a 5yr episode with Optus and a contract with my daughter. Corporate pedophiles is not too strong a word (or 2) for dozens of retailers today.

 

[Smurf1976]

HisSo really is Gerry Harvey a bright success or is he just bleeding the youth by offering excessive credit at filthy interest rates.

If it wasn't for GE, Gerry Harvey, would be nothing!

I can see your point there. But to be fair I must point out that nobody forces anyone to accept the credit just because it is offered to them.

What about, for example, tobacco companies? Everyone knows it's a dangerous product that can lead to death. And yet go to any nightclub or even just out on the town on a Saturday night and start counting the number of young people that DON'T smoke. That's especially the case of those into the pubs/clubs scene.

If I recall correctly you live in Adelaide - so go and sit outside the Austral Hotel or go to Heaven this Saturday night and you'll soon see what I mean. A LOT of people smoke despite knowing full well that it's dangerous to health. Someone has smoked their first cigarette while you were reading this...

They know it's dangerous but they do it anyway. They could quit (been there, done that so nobody say it can't be done ) but they choose not to. I don't see any tobacco company employees standing there placing cigarettes between lips, lighting them, forcing people to draw on them, inhale and then exhale. The individual made the decision to start using what they already knew to be a dangerous and addictive product. And they make the decision to not even seriously attempt to quit in most cases.

I could likewise kill myself with electricity right now. Do I blame the power supplier or is it my own stupidity for messing about with it? Do I blame Caltex if I douse myself with petrol and catch fire? What if I don't look when crossing the road and get run over by that proverbial bus? As an adult I ought to know that electricity, petrol and buses (and debt, cigarettes and plenty of other things) are dangerous.

Short of banning credit purchases of consumer items outright (possibly not such a bad idea) I really can't see how we solve this problem. It's like alcohol - do we ban it to protect drunks from themselves (even though it wouldn't work) or do we just accept it that most people use it reasonably responsibly?

 

[krisbarry]

Point taken, but I guess when you just want a fridge, then you just want the credit to buy the fridge and not the attaching credit card that comes with it.

Other compaines just start a credit account at the store of purchase and there are no extra credit facilities attached.

Harvery Norman is not a bank, but a theiving bank with high interest rates!

 

[Julia]

Kris:

re the evil credit-offering retailers: do you think they should be banned because we as consumers are unable to accept personal responsiblity in the decisions we make. Take your premise to its logical conclusion and personal choice would totally give way to even more government legislation denying us our right to make our own personal choices.

This is somewhat off the topic but in Australia it is illegal not to vote.
New Zealand has just held its election. Voting there is optional. They had an over 80 % turnout. Wouldn't Australia be better off counting the votes from the people who care enough to take an intelligent interest, and thus discounting the meaningless votes from that large section of the community who just go to the ballot and make marks in boxes without any comprehension of what they are voting for.

Sorry. I've gone right off topic. Just couldn't help having a mental picture of the future if we give up our right to make personal choices, be it regarding credit or anything else.

Julia

 

[Smurf1976]

This is somewhat off the topic but in Australia it is illegal not to vote.
New Zealand has just held its election. Voting there is optional. They had an over 80 % turnout. Wouldn't Australia be better off counting the votes from the people who care enough to take an intelligent interest, and thus discounting the meaningless votes from that large section of the community who just go to the ballot and make marks in boxes without any comprehension of what they are voting for.
Julia

Having had some political involvement I can say with certainty that things that are optional most certainly ARE used to swing outcomes against the wishes of the majority. Voting must remain compulsory unless we accept minority groups gaining, in practice, near-absolute control.

It's not hard to get 2% or so of the population organised to push a certain agenda. If only 50% are voting and it needs a 3% swing to change the government then that makes one heck of a difference. It literally changes the government and ensures that the minority group gets whatever it happens to want this time.

I can recall something that had about 1% (literally) public support being pushed very heavily by the global Green movement (which has plenty of resources to throw at these things) to the point of nearly happening. With just 1% local support!!! (survey figure). But with so few people willing to take a stand these things can get through...

And I've also seen a whole series of government-run public meetings stacked by the same 10 or so people so that every single meeting produced the same outcome. They knew how it worked and scattered themselves around the room accordingly. The outcome was contrary to the politices of not only the government running the meetings but, it seems, to most of the others at the meetings. If everyone were forced to attend such meetings then they couldn't be stacked due to the sheer numbers involved. Same with voting.

 

[krisbarry]

Julia, you are older and wiser than the naive 18 year old, who has just moved out of home and needs a fridge.

She/He goes to Harvey Norman and buys this fridge on credit, not knowing that a credit card arrives in the post a few weeks later.

Not only do they have a fridge on credit, but an account, that gives them even more credit, that they never asked for or probably could not afford to pay back anyway.

Was he/she ever explained of the filthy interest rate, probably not, nor the credit card, nor the sudden increase in credit, that came with this card.

Thumbs down to Gerry Harvery!