World Turned upside down

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well.

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.

[sdrealtor]

TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.

[sdrealtor]

TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.

[sdrealtor]

TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.

[sdrealtor]

TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.

[sdrealtor]

TV’s was just an example. My point was the same as yours. Technology has moved forward and societies expectations along with it. People consume alot more discretionary goods than before but because of globalization they are cheaper. Women weren’t forced into the work place, they demanded equal opportunity. I’m not one who beleives kids need stay at home Mom’s to be brought up properly. I beleive women workers are every bit as good as male workers. I also believe Dad’s can do a great job with kids too.

With less spent on consumer goods in todays society that freed up more money for long term/investment type expenditures. I understand the dangers of households having higher long term fixed expenses but beleive that is not worse (and maybe better) than people not being able to afford everday purchases. If housing is too expensive in a market like this, renting is a fine alternative.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]

Interesting contradictions you’ve exposed, Arraya.

It’s all interconnected. That’s why I believe we need social policies that are fair and equitable to everybody.

The rich depend on the poor much more than they think they do.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]

Interesting contradictions you’ve exposed, Arraya.

It’s all interconnected. That’s why I believe we need social policies that are fair and equitable to everybody.

The rich depend on the poor much more than they think they do.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]

Interesting contradictions you’ve exposed, Arraya.

It’s all interconnected. That’s why I believe we need social policies that are fair and equitable to everybody.

The rich depend on the poor much more than they think they do.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]

Interesting contradictions you’ve exposed, Arraya.

It’s all interconnected. That’s why I believe we need social policies that are fair and equitable to everybody.

The rich depend on the poor much more than they think they do.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.

Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]

Interesting contradictions you’ve exposed, Arraya.

It’s all interconnected. That’s why I believe we need social policies that are fair and equitable to everybody.

The rich depend on the poor much more than they think they do.

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. [/quote]

We would not have the economy we have today… in fact, it would be much healthier (re: less leverage and risk), in my view, albeit at a lower level of GDP. If we had grown at 2.5% annually over the last 25 years instead of 3%, but we didn’t have all of the incremental debt that’s built up (which engendered that incremental GDP growth), we’d be in much better financial shape today, although, again, we would have left some GDP on the table, so to speak. Personally, that’s a trade-off I would make every single time.
[quote=Arraya]
Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.
[/quote]
There’s undoubtedly some truth to this, although it’s all relative and the numbers are hard to gauge. That is, the folks running a successful consumer finance company – just to use an obvious example – might still be very successful, albeit not AS successful as the credit bubble has made them (for now – they still have to collect those outstanding balances!). But certainly there are a lot of folks worth $10 million (pick a number) that would be worth half of that without “the spenders/borrowers”.
[quote=Arraya]
Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]
Indeed, Lord Keynes’ Paradox of Thrift raises its ugly head…

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. [/quote]

We would not have the economy we have today… in fact, it would be much healthier (re: less leverage and risk), in my view, albeit at a lower level of GDP. If we had grown at 2.5% annually over the last 25 years instead of 3%, but we didn’t have all of the incremental debt that’s built up (which engendered that incremental GDP growth), we’d be in much better financial shape today, although, again, we would have left some GDP on the table, so to speak. Personally, that’s a trade-off I would make every single time.
[quote=Arraya]
Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.
[/quote]
There’s undoubtedly some truth to this, although it’s all relative and the numbers are hard to gauge. That is, the folks running a successful consumer finance company – just to use an obvious example – might still be very successful, albeit not AS successful as the credit bubble has made them (for now – they still have to collect those outstanding balances!). But certainly there are a lot of folks worth $10 million (pick a number) that would be worth half of that without “the spenders/borrowers”.
[quote=Arraya]
Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]
Indeed, Lord Keynes’ Paradox of Thrift raises its ugly head…

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. [/quote]

We would not have the economy we have today… in fact, it would be much healthier (re: less leverage and risk), in my view, albeit at a lower level of GDP. If we had grown at 2.5% annually over the last 25 years instead of 3%, but we didn’t have all of the incremental debt that’s built up (which engendered that incremental GDP growth), we’d be in much better financial shape today, although, again, we would have left some GDP on the table, so to speak. Personally, that’s a trade-off I would make every single time.
[quote=Arraya]
Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.
[/quote]
There’s undoubtedly some truth to this, although it’s all relative and the numbers are hard to gauge. That is, the folks running a successful consumer finance company – just to use an obvious example – might still be very successful, albeit not AS successful as the credit bubble has made them (for now – they still have to collect those outstanding balances!). But certainly there are a lot of folks worth $10 million (pick a number) that would be worth half of that without “the spenders/borrowers”.
[quote=Arraya]
Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]
Indeed, Lord Keynes’ Paradox of Thrift raises its ugly head…

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]
But, to the idea of; if these people would “live within their means” and accept the fact that they are not “what ever consumption level” our economy would be better off, is not even a valid line of thought – if they did not open up the spigots of easy credit decades ago – we would not have the economy we have today – it would have ran into problems years ago – or the reality of our economy would have been exposed years ago and that is something nobody wants to face. [/quote]

We would not have the economy we have today… in fact, it would be much healthier (re: less leverage and risk), in my view, albeit at a lower level of GDP. If we had grown at 2.5% annually over the last 25 years instead of 3%, but we didn’t have all of the incremental debt that’s built up (which engendered that incremental GDP growth), we’d be in much better financial shape today, although, again, we would have left some GDP on the table, so to speak. Personally, that’s a trade-off I would make every single time.
[quote=Arraya]
Quite possibly, some of those living the good life, “within their means”, would not be where they are without those living above their means.
[/quote]
There’s undoubtedly some truth to this, although it’s all relative and the numbers are hard to gauge. That is, the folks running a successful consumer finance company – just to use an obvious example – might still be very successful, albeit not AS successful as the credit bubble has made them (for now – they still have to collect those outstanding balances!). But certainly there are a lot of folks worth $10 million (pick a number) that would be worth half of that without “the spenders/borrowers”.
[quote=Arraya]
Interestingly, a sudden rash of people being frugal and living within their means actually, in the short-term, is detrimental to social functionality because it increases unemployment, decreases tax receipts, etc… We all know wall street would boo and hiss consumer spending going down. Kind puts a new meaning on what it is to be responsible, eh?[/quote]
Indeed, Lord Keynes’ Paradox of Thrift raises its ugly head…

[Author]

Posts