Best Future Skyline

[VDB]

Originally Posted by Brummyboy92

So optimistic Vold

True dat.

We are in a terrible situation though. We owe trillions and are STILL borrowing.

[EuxTex]

Originally Posted by VDB

Things like this happen in a cycle all the time.

V.I.Lenin predicted the nature of capitalisms "Boom & Bust" cycles and said. "The boom periods will become shallower and the bust periods deeper". Prophetic? No doubt!

Originally Posted by VDB

In the 20s we were in a boom, from 1929 we were in a Depression... by the 40s (after the war) there was another slight boom....

The"slight boom", you mentioned was actually the longest, boom in capitalist history and occurred between 1945 and 1974, a total of 28 years of economic expansion. This expansion was fueled by the rebuilding of the capitalist production capacity after WWII, arms manufacturing due to the "Cold War" the space race and the baby boom effect. It was the "Space Race" that spurred R&D in electronics which gave us cellular communications, digital photography and home entertainment devices etc. The boom also lifted more people out of relative poverty allowing them to participate in the consumer boom.

Originally Posted by VDB

it's bad, but it's happened before. We'll pull through.

Yes, but with more frequent and shorter boom times and longer, deeper recessions, than before. Yes, some will "pull though it" others may not.

PS: Do you know the difference between a recession and depression?

[VDB]

Originally Posted by EuxTex

V.I.Lenin predicted the nature of capitalisms "Boom & Bust" cycles and said. "The boom periods will become shallower and the bust periods deeper". Prophetic? No doubt!

I just find it very funny how Hoover in 1929 said "the good times will last forever, it's up up up from here, poverty will be a thing of the past", and then he was proved wrong in October of that year. Gordon Brown said pretty much the same thing in 2008, and was proved wrong again! Lessons unlearnt.

Originally Posted by EuxTex

The"slight boom", you mentioned was actually the longest, boom in capitalist history and occurred between 1945 and 1974, a total of 28 years of economic expansion. This expansion was fueled by the rebuilding of the capitalist production capacity after WWII, arms manufacturing due to the "Cold War" the space race and the baby boom effect. It was the "Space Race" that spurred R&D in electronics which gave us cellular communications, digital photography and home entertainment devices etc. The boom also lifted more people out of relative poverty allowing them to participate in the consumer boom.

I said slight boom because I didn't want to sound too optimistic about the post-war peroid where thousands of people had died.

Originally Posted by EuxTex

Yes, but with more frequent and shorter boom times and longer, deeper recessions, than before. Yes, some will "pull though it" others may not.

PS: Do you know the difference between a recession and depression?

True. They are getting much worse, however I think I'm right in saying this one still isn't as bad as 1929-39? Certainly the worst since, we're in more debt now than we were in the 40s when we owed America for war materiel.

[Lad 2011]

Originally Posted by VDB

Well, not everything will happen, a lot of businesses/investors have gone bankrupt. But sure thing we'll be out of this mess by 2015. GMCA has predicted a major growth in jobs to start next year, etc.

Things like this happen in a cycle all the time. In the 20s we were in a boom, from 1929 we were in a Depression... by the 40s (after the war) there was another slight boom.... then in the 80s a huge boom in London and the UK from finance, but then the 90s which saw a large bust. Later on into the 90s and up to 2008 there was another boom, and now we're in a bust again.

All these people saying it's the end of the world... it's bad, but it's happened before. We'll pull through.

Well said.

[EuxTex]

Originally Posted by VDB

I just find it very funny how Hoover in 1929 said "the good times will last forever, it's up up up from here, poverty will be a thing of the past", and then he was proved wrong in October of that year. Gordon Brown said pretty much the same thing in 2008, and was proved wrong again! Lessons unlearnt.

But Lenin was correct, history doesn't lie.

Originally Posted by VDB

I said slight boom because I didn't want to sound too optimistic about the post-war peroid where thousands of people had died.

????? It was a massive boom, the biggest and longest in the history of capitalism, the fact that millions died during the many wars, starting with the Spanish Civil War through WWII to the Korean war and, those conflicts notwithstanding, has no relationship to the historical fact it was a massive boom.. Hoping to not sound to paternalistic, I would advise reading history and economics and not just capitalist supporting economists authors.

Originally Posted by VDB

True. They are getting much worse, however I think I'm right in saying this one still isn't as bad as 1929-39? Certainly the worst since, we're in more debt now than we were in the 40s when we owed America for war materiel.

No, it's actually worse, the consequences of which are having less of an impact due only to governments bailing out those who caused the crash in the first place, with our money, banksters, investment brokers, insurance companies etc. If left to collapse like was done in the 1929 crash capitalism would likely have become a footnote in history. We would probably be fighting them and their governments, police and military on the streets. It will happen though, it's inevitable. This isn't the end of history as they would have us believe.

[VDB]

People aren't in extreme poverty like they were in 29, that's what I was getting at. Of course, the only reason some aren't in poverty now is because of the welfare state.

The difference here is that there has been a crash on a "public" level (as in, people borrowing more than they can afford, and then paying for stuff with credit) but also on a government level (Labour spent too much, borrowed more than they could afford, and then crashed). That, and several other reasons, is why we're all screwed this time.

At least in the 30s the Hoover government had the money to bail out businesses and organise huge employment projects like the Hoover Dam (and, later on, Roosevelt's alphabet agencies). Nowadays the government doesn't even have money to provide such public projects.

[EuxTex]

Originally Posted by VDB

The difference here is that there has been a crash on a "public" level (as in, people borrowing more than they can afford, and then paying for stuff with credit) but also on a government level (Labour spent too much, borrowed more than they could afford, and then crashed). That, and several other reasons, is why we're all screwed this time.

Believe what you will but, the facts are contained in the following: Let us use Iceland as the model; The people of Iceland, like people all over the EU and the US borrowed money from the banks for mortgages and consumer goods. The people were, and still are, paying back these loans to the banks, the banks in turn used the loans repayment promises as collateral to borrow money from banks based in other European countries like the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany etc. The loans they received were used to purchase toxic sub-prime mortgage notes from US banks and investment houses. When these investments went south, those Icelandic banks instructed the government to repay their bad loans to the EU banks. The Icelandic government was prepared to acquiesce to this demand and use the peoples money to pay the banks debts. The people balked at this, saying, "we are still paying our loans back to the Icelandic banks, it is they who were cavalier about borrowing and it is they who should pay back their own debts". Those bankers are now resident in London and the Icelandic people are glad they are there.

It was not sovereign debt that caused the Wall Street and, subsequently, the world financial crises, it was private banks and investment houses. Sovereign debt is now being encumbered by the investment banks and ratings services, like Moody's and Standard & Poors by them slashing the ratings of the debts of a nation, in order to milk more profit through forcing the national governments to pay more interest on their bond issues. The only people who profit from this is the banks and their shareholders. Oh yes, the governments know this and are in collusion with the banks. Yes, it is very different than in 1929 when the governments let the banks and industrialist (Robber Barons) face their own music.

It was not people borrowing more than they could pay but the bankers providing toxic loans without telling the borrower the full facts and consequence of those loans. Most of the people, in most of the world, are still paying their debts to the banks. It is the banks who are in trouble, not the people. Who was it who said, "If you owe the bank a million $ dollars and can't pay it you are in trouble, if you owe the bank a billion $ dollars and can't pay it then the bank is in trouble". Not any more, now if the bank gets into trouble, whether through it's own incompetence and/or greed then it is the innocent taxpayer who will foot the bill.

[Manc Guy]

Why bother arguing VDB?

Your wasting your time...

[the pool08]

Originally Posted by VDB

People aren't in extreme poverty like they were in 29, that's what I was getting at. Of course, the only reason some aren't in poverty now is because of the welfare state.

The difference here is that there has been a crash on a "public" level (as in, people borrowing more than they can afford, and then paying for stuff with credit) but also on a government level (Labour spent too much, borrowed more than they could afford, and then crashed). That, and several other reasons, is why we're all screwed this time.

At least in the 30s the Hoover government had the money to bail out businesses and organise huge employment projects like the Hoover Dam (and, later on, Roosevelt's alphabet agencies). Nowadays the government doesn't even have money to provide such public projects.

well if spending too much to you means rebuilding crumbling schools and hospitals
in the 6th richest country in the world.

well you really have been taken in by the right wing media haven't you.
i tell you what lets just cut the top earners tax by 5% instead.
now thats much better.

[EuxTex]

Originally Posted by Manc Guy

Why bother arguing VDB?

Your wasting your time...

What's your theory?

[Dung Pao Yu]

Originally Posted by EuxTex

Believe what you will but, the facts are contained in the following: Let us use Iceland as the model; The people of Iceland, like people all over the EU and the US borrowed money from the banks for mortgages and consumer goods. The people were, and still are, paying back these loans to the banks, the banks in turn used the loans repayment promises as collateral to borrow money from banks based in other European countries like the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany etc. The loans they received were used to purchase toxic sub-prime mortgage notes from US banks and investment houses. When these investments went south, those Icelandic banks instructed the government to repay their bad loans to the EU banks. The Icelandic government was prepared to acquiesce to this demand and use the peoples money to pay the banks debts. The people balked at this, saying, "we are still paying our loans back to the Icelandic banks, it is they who were cavalier about borrowing and it is they who should pay back their own debts". Those bankers are now resident in London and the Icelandic people are glad they are there.

It was not sovereign debt that caused the Wall Street and, subsequently, the world financial crises, it was private banks and investment houses. Sovereign debt is now being encumbered by the investment banks and ratings services, like Moody's and Standard & Poors by them slashing the ratings of the debts of a nation, in order to milk more profit through forcing the national governments to pay more interest on their bond issues. The only people who profit from this is the banks and their shareholders. Oh yes, the governments know this and are in collusion with the banks. Yes, it is very different than in 1929 when the governments let the banks and industrialist (Robber Barons) face their own music.

It was not people borrowing more than they could pay but the bankers providing toxic loans without telling the borrower the full facts and consequence of those loans. Most of the people, in most of the world, are still paying their debts to the banks. It is the banks who are in trouble, not the people. Who was it who said, "If you owe the bank a million $ dollars and can't pay it you are in trouble, if you owe the bank a billion $ dollars and can't pay it then the bank is in trouble". Not any more, now if the bank gets into trouble, whether through it's own incompetence and/or greed then it is the innocent taxpayer who will foot the bill.

This is good and quite close to the marks. Isnt this what the Occupy movement has been saying? And the quote about the million and billion was by J. Paul Getty. Keep them coming, its very good discussion but should be in another thread of its own.

[ill tonkso]

I really think Portsmouth is a serious contender for this, particularly with the latest proposal. We just need to get these things built.

[Ecological]

Well Birmingham ain't going to be anywhere close from what i've heard and seen so good luck to Pompey because it's topography deserves a top skyline and would certainly become a focal destination for British tourism.

[MancKnight]

Anyone else see this video on the bbc website today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20447257

its beautiful

[this_city]

Originally Posted by MancKnight

Anyone else see this video on the bbc website today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20447257

its beautiful

no but thanks for sharing. that was very cool

[the pool08]

[Gherkin]

Looks interesting... have the towers all had height reductions? They barely look higher than 150m

[Paul D]

Peels original outline plans were largely exaggerated knowing full well English Heritage and UNESCO would demand the scheme be scaled back. By over exaggerating the scheme they could get the development to where they wanted it and be seen to be scaling back to suit their heritage concerns. This is the scheme as it stands now, taking into account that three of those talls are already there, this development is very achievable now, I can't see how people think otherwise seeing as it's over thirty years.

[Yorkshire Boy]

What about Shanghai Tower? - not it's 200m~ planned height anymore then?

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire Boy

What about Shanghai Tower? - not it's 200m~ planned height anymore then?

It was originally 60 stories, it's down as 55 now.