Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Banks in our current society are a necessity, but what ever happened to the extended family, people working together, etc. Before banks existed in their current form, people survived (as did the economies) quite well! The idea of a banking institution loaning out money to joe nobody for just about anything (lines of credit, loans for vacations,etc) is a recent affair. And I'm pretty sure that you could write a cheque (note the spelling, Canadian http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ) to buy a car, it would just have to be a used car in the 400-500$ range is all.

N.A. was settled on the basis of hard working/entreprenurial people banding together to achieve greater things. There was an era in our contries when farmers did barn raisings, families bought and ran stores together, people lived in extended family housing arrangements, etc. Banks are not needed for any of these functions, because human relationship can fulfill any of these.

I will concede that very very few of us can buy a house outright, and that a mortgage is a likely requirement. However at least in this case the borrower will end up with a decent asset at the end... but wouldn't it be better if we could avoid paying double or more of the houses value by having a society of lender/borrowers instead of a society of banks/borrowers.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The other thing to consider about mortgages is that before banks and mortgages, houses were generally much cheaper. They were made of simple, readily avvailable local materials and families would often build their own homes. The technology and materials involved in house building is far more complex and expensive than it was, but in most cases the price of a property is mainly to do with the cost of the land it's built on. If all we were paying for was the bricks and mortar (and glass and central heating and electrics and solar panels=-) then houses would probably be in the same kind of price range as that of a car.

Of course it's all complicated these days by the estate agents' markup, the legal fees involved in buying and registering a home, the labour of the various professionals required to design and build the house to the necesaary legal standards...

EDIT: Am I imagining this, or did I see a thing about a place in Australia somewhere wher, in the absence of building materials (they're in a desert) they dug themselves an entire town out of the rock beneath their feet, and still live there very comfortably now. Need a new bedroom? Get the pick axe Norma...

[ February 14, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, centuries ago before banks were around, people survived just fine (although just barely, and more often than not did not survive). Not that banks allowed people to survive, mind you. The economies of the ancient world were extremely simplistic, and people did not need to borrow money, because they lived, worked and died in the same spot all their lives, and just barely managed to eke out a living. You can not maintain a more complex economy with out a banking system, period. I for one will not be joining you in your effort to return to a primitive society of farmers with no basic luxuries at all (things like hostpitals, cars, canned food, supermarkets, etc.). Social and economic progress is when less people have to spend their entire lives working to grow enough food to feed themselves, and so more and more people can work in other areas, developing arts, technologies, whatever. I for one would not want to return to an agrarian society.

[ February 14, 2003, 21:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

I'd say that the early american (primarily US) economy did quite well, circa Adams (what would that be, 1850s?) right up until WWI. During this period, your average Joe Bagodonoughts wouldn't just trundle on down to the local banker and procure a loan for a "frivolous" expense such as a brand new - top of the line - horse/automobile, let alone a line of credit so that he/she could go off on a holiday. The primary purpose of a bank was to help people who wanted to undertake "serious" investment get the starting capital (and then of course the bank gets its pound of the pie). (that said, there was the stock market crash which had bank involvement, but that was more a sickness of the stock markets than the banks)

Today the average Joe is encouraged by nearly every banking (and/or credit card) institution on the planet to enroll themselves in even more debt for the sake of lifestyle. I just can't agree that this is a healthy modus operandi by which to run an economy!

Now I didn't choose the pre-WWI time period at random - interestingly the time period in which Western Civilization controlled the largest % of world capital/wealth is now past, and as the Western Civs produce less but consume more, their wealth as a percentage of total world wealth is declining. (I've got the numbers if ya want them)

And so my summary equations regarding a vibrant and growing economy:

Savings = good
Stagnant Savings = bad
Consumption = good
Reinvestment = better
Rabid consumption = extremely imbalanced = bad
banks = unnecessary (except for large capital projects)

Now I'm just a biologist, but them's my views!

[ February 14, 2003, 23:46: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Its Coober Pedy. Its an opal mining town in the desert north of Adelaide. The best thing about the underground houses is they are nice and cool, as it is fricken hot outside.

Askan