Onya, Lefteee! We're on the same page with all of it - I agree!Lefteee wrote: ... individual achievement can be a great thing but our ability to work collectively is one the reasons we have gone from naked ape to dominant species ...
Cutting the fat
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
annielaurie
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:07 am
Re: Cutting the fat
.
-
Lefteee
Re: Cutting the fat
Yeah! The over-heavy emphasis on individualism in today's society shits me. Human beings are both individualistic and collective by nature. When we smother either trait, we are a society out of balance.
Going back to fallacy of compostion: imagine you are at a football game. If you stand up in your seat, do you get a better veiw of the game? Of course you do. Logically then, doesn't it follow that if all individuals stand up in their seats, they will all get a better veiw? Of course not - all individuals seeking to maximise their own self-interest at the same time can create consequences where nobody or only a handfull actually get ahead.
Like the Australian real estate boom, which ran more or less simultaneous to the US and British ones. So many people wanted to "have it all and have it now". The house they already had - already reasonably big and flash by the standards of nearly every other country on Earth - was used as collateral to borrow against so that they could buy a bigger and more expensive pad. Or just more expensive. Combine that with a boom in John and Jane Doe investors who had read 0-200 properties in 2 years and fancied themselves "fifty-cent capitalists (oh, thanks to former Prime Minister and George Dubya's little sheriff, John Howard who slashed the capital gains tax in half, making it attractive for investors to buy up all the cheap housing of the sort that Fred the old council worker could afford to buy, rennovate it up and then flog it off at a profit) - shouldn't all these people all seeking to maximise their own individual self-interest have led to most people being better off?
No! All that it achieved overall was to bid the price of a roof overhead up, up, up and away. People ended up in more debt than ever before as a proportion of their income. Those who got in early on the game made a fat profit but most people just ended up with fat mortgage debt.
I was gobsmacked when we got a valuers report on our house a couple of years ago - it was more than 3 times what we paid for it. We would struggle like hell to be able to afford such repayments. And if we sold, what would we gain? Sure we would have gotten a lot more than we paid for it - but all other properties had become that much more expensive as well.
I couldn't care less about "upgrading". I like our little shoebox just as it is.
Going back to fallacy of compostion: imagine you are at a football game. If you stand up in your seat, do you get a better veiw of the game? Of course you do. Logically then, doesn't it follow that if all individuals stand up in their seats, they will all get a better veiw? Of course not - all individuals seeking to maximise their own self-interest at the same time can create consequences where nobody or only a handfull actually get ahead.
Like the Australian real estate boom, which ran more or less simultaneous to the US and British ones. So many people wanted to "have it all and have it now". The house they already had - already reasonably big and flash by the standards of nearly every other country on Earth - was used as collateral to borrow against so that they could buy a bigger and more expensive pad. Or just more expensive. Combine that with a boom in John and Jane Doe investors who had read 0-200 properties in 2 years and fancied themselves "fifty-cent capitalists (oh, thanks to former Prime Minister and George Dubya's little sheriff, John Howard who slashed the capital gains tax in half, making it attractive for investors to buy up all the cheap housing of the sort that Fred the old council worker could afford to buy, rennovate it up and then flog it off at a profit) - shouldn't all these people all seeking to maximise their own individual self-interest have led to most people being better off?
No! All that it achieved overall was to bid the price of a roof overhead up, up, up and away. People ended up in more debt than ever before as a proportion of their income. Those who got in early on the game made a fat profit but most people just ended up with fat mortgage debt.
I was gobsmacked when we got a valuers report on our house a couple of years ago - it was more than 3 times what we paid for it. We would struggle like hell to be able to afford such repayments. And if we sold, what would we gain? Sure we would have gotten a lot more than we paid for it - but all other properties had become that much more expensive as well.
I couldn't care less about "upgrading". I like our little shoebox just as it is.
-
Aussie
Re: Cutting the fat
If you sell and buy in the same market, you get a net free upgrade.........if you ignore the cost of the sell and the buy.Lefteee wrote:Yeah! The over-heavy emphasis on individualism in today's society shits me. Human beings are both individualistic and collective by nature. When we smother either trait, we are a society out of balance.
Going back to fallacy of compostion: imagine you are at a football game. If you stand up in your seat, do you get a better veiw of the game? Of course you do. Logically then, doesn't it follow that if all individuals stand up in their seats, they will all get a better veiw? Of course not - all individuals seeking to maximise their own self-interest at the same time can create consequences where nobody or only a handfull actually get ahead.
Like the Australian real estate boom, which ran more or less simultaneous to the US and British ones. So many people wanted to "have it all and have it now". The house they already had - already reasonably big and flash by the standards of nearly every other country on Earth - was used as collateral to borrow against so that they could buy a bigger and more expensive pad. Or just more expensive. Combine that with a boom in John and Jane Doe investors who had read 0-200 properties in 2 years and fancied themselves "fifty-cent capitalists (oh, thanks to former Prime Minister and George Dubya's little sheriff, John Howard who slashed the capital gains tax in half, making it attractive for investors to buy up all the cheap housing of the sort that Fred the old council worker could afford to buy, rennovate it up and then flog it off at a profit) - shouldn't all these people all seeking to maximise their own individual self-interest have led to most people being better off?
No! All that it achieved overall was to bid the price of a roof overhead up, up, up and away. People ended up in more debt than ever before as a proportion of their income. Those who got in early on the game made a fat profit but most people just ended up with fat mortgage debt.
I was gobsmacked when we got a valuers report on our house a couple of years ago - it was more than 3 times what we paid for it. We would struggle like hell to be able to afford such repayments. And if we sold, what would we gain? Sure we would have gotten a lot more than we paid for it - but all other properties had become that much more expensive as well.
I couldn't care less about "upgrading". I like our little shoebox just as it is.
-
annielaurie
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:07 am
-
Lefteee
Re: Cutting the fat
I just gave the money to my tech-head brother-in-law and said "buildeth me a fine computer". So I have no idea what it actually is. I can assume he will intall all the latest whistles and bells. Hey- it might even turn out to be a Mac 
-
Lefteee
Re: Cutting the fat
Do we get fries with that?If you sell and buy in the same market, you get a net free upgrade.........if you ignore the cost of the sell and the buy.
-
Lefteee
Re: Cutting the fat
And another thing.
Were all these people really acting as rational individuals who all simultaneously just happened to decide to do the same thing at the same time? I think if people reflected back, many of them would conclude that they were doing it because.........well, because everyone else was doing it.
How's the irony? Many people probably weren't acting as clever little individuals at all - they were acting collectively. They were following a big mass trend. It was really another form of collective action but one without any thought toward improving everyone's lot or any thought as to what might eventually transpire as everybody jostled to carve out a bigger and bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
Despite my strong belief in (positive) collectivism, I never had any interest in getting in on the craze, so I was probably engaging in real individualism jut by not joining the trend.
Like yourself Annie, I can't go out of style because I've never been in
Were all these people really acting as rational individuals who all simultaneously just happened to decide to do the same thing at the same time? I think if people reflected back, many of them would conclude that they were doing it because.........well, because everyone else was doing it.
How's the irony? Many people probably weren't acting as clever little individuals at all - they were acting collectively. They were following a big mass trend. It was really another form of collective action but one without any thought toward improving everyone's lot or any thought as to what might eventually transpire as everybody jostled to carve out a bigger and bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
Despite my strong belief in (positive) collectivism, I never had any interest in getting in on the craze, so I was probably engaging in real individualism jut by not joining the trend.
Like yourself Annie, I can't go out of style because I've never been in
-
Lefteee
Re: Cutting the fat
Lefteee wrote:And another thing.
Were all these people really acting as rational individuals who all simultaneously just happened to decide to do the same thing at the same time? I think if people reflected back, many of them would conclude that they were doing it because.........well, because everyone else was doing it.
How's the irony? Many people probably weren't acting as clever little individuals at all - they were acting collectively. They were following a big mass trend. It was really another form of collective action but one without any thought toward improving everyone's lot or any thought as to what might eventually transpire as everybody jostled to carve out a bigger and bigger slice of the pie for themselves.
Despite my strong belief in (positive) collectivism, I never had any interest in getting in on the craze, so I was probably engaging in real individualism just by not joining the trend.
Like yourself Annie, I can't go out of style because I've never been in
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests