# Alternative lifestyles by Spaniards



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

Recently there was a thread that mentioned simple living and it became apparent that many associated that with a hard, challenging and a life without modernity.

Well I came across these Youtube short documentaries about such living, I found the topic really interesting.


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)




----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

For those that are worried about living life without modernity then this link should demonstrate that it certainly does not need be.


----------



## Feraya (Sep 22, 2014)

Thank you for sharing these videos. It must be wonderful to build your own eco home and to enjoy and feel the peace and calm of nature.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

oronero said:


> Recently there was a thread that mentioned simple living and it became apparent that many associated that with a hard, challenging and a life without modernity.
> 
> Well I came across these Youtube short documentaries about such living, I found the topic really interesting.


I had seen the second video before, perhaps on the forum, (perhaps it was even me who posted it!)
It appears that just as there are sterotypes of what the English or Spanish are like there are also stereotypes about lifestyles including what gays, fans of Status Quo and people who want to live off grid or a more simple life do/ like. There seemed to be an assumption that these people (the back to a simple life ones) don't pay their dues ie taxes and instead of being self sufficient they actually live off others.

PS. I don't like the third house very much. I think they could have made the central water "feature" much more attractive for example


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

The look great in the summer sunshine, maybe not so appealing in January. I really admire people who are bringing these deserted villages back to life though. Thirty years ago I'd have done it myself given half a chance, but now I like my home comforts too much.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

We were going to buy something very similar to this in Sánamo, Canatabria. It was an ex cow shed like the 3rd video, but next door was still being used as a cow shed! Thank God we decided against it looking at the To Do List that we've got in our ordinary semi on an urb. We'd never have got past putting a roof on!


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

Feraya said:


> Thank you for sharing these videos. It must be wonderful to build your own eco home and to enjoy and feel the peace and calm of nature.


When I hear the term 'Eco house' I think of buildings made of hemp and straw etc.... though the reality of those old villages that have been restored is that they were 'Eco houses' of their time, in as much as the materials were locally sourced using traditional building methods.

Restoring them once derelict buildings and bringing back to life forgotten communities is a good use of the resources of that area, fair play to those that did that. It seems that those interviewed in the footage are happy with their life choices...being healthy and happy, two very important factors in life, wealth does not always correlate with them, perhaps one's outlook on life is more important.


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> We were going to buy something very similar to this in Sánamo, Canatabria. It was an ex cow shed like the 3rd video, but next door was still being used as a cow shed! Thank God we decided against it looking at the To Do List that we've got in our ordinary semi on an urb. We'd never have got past putting a roof on!


Don't forget all them peasant's cow sheds that were in the hill's of Austria, France, Italy and Switzerland decades ago. Those poor farmers are now wealthier chalet owners, I guess 60 years ago the young would have been leaving those areas seeking work, employment and a future in larger towns and cities...funny how things go around.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky;6589178
It appears that just as there are sterotypes of what the English or Spanish are like there are also stereotypes about lifestyles including what gays said:


> Could someone explain what is meant by the phrase 'a simple life'?
> Does it merely involve generating your own electricity?
> 
> I know many people who live on-grid but as I see it live a simple life...some because they have no alternative through straitened circumstances, others who choose a life without ostentation or unnecessary consumption.
> ...


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

mrypg9 said:


> Could someone explain what is meant by the phrase 'a simple life'?
> Does it merely involve generating your own electricity?
> 
> I know many people who live on-grid but as I see it live a simple life...some because they have no alternative through straitened circumstances, others who choose a life without ostentation or unnecessary consumption.
> ...


Doing away with unnecessary consumption in life would in my opinion mean a basic standard of living, enough to eat, pay bills and exist. As I have understood by your replies not the sort of life that you want to live nor me.

In my opinion a 'simple life' is an outlook on how one lives and conducts themselves through life, doing away without wasting resources or changing things merely because the colour or style is no longer the 'fashion of the week'.

I do not believe that it is about spending the least amount either, for example buying a vehicle and keeping it for the life-cycle that should be expected from it, whether it is the latest battery powered car or the newest super-car is irrelevant. 

A rich person does not have to live the life of somebody who does not have as much disposable income as themselves to be considered living a 'simple life'.

It's not about what you have but what you do with it. Living the life for yourself, not for what others may think.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

oronero said:


> Doing away with unnecessary consumption in life would in my opinion mean a basic standard of living, enough to eat, pay bills and exist. As I have understood by your replies not the sort of life that you want to live nor me.
> 
> In my opinion a 'simple life' is an outlook on how one lives and conducts themselves through life, doing away without wasting resources or changing things merely because the colour or style is no longer the 'fashion of the week'.
> 
> ...


Yes, these ideas encapsulate a lot of what I suppose people refer to when they talk about the simple life. I also think that for many it implies a stronger relationship with nature which would involve growing things, perhaps food, staying more in contact with the seasons ie eating food in season, not being at home in a tshirt in winter, going outside more in a rural setting instead of going to a town or city.
However, it is all subjective and open to interpretation. I like many think I live a fairly simple life, made more complicated right now by the fact that I have to work. I could list all the things I do and more to the point that I don't do that I'm sure most of the people who live around me carry on doing blissfully unaware that they are not living the simple life although professing to do so.However, I suspect that it wouldn't be very useful, or interesting come to that...


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

oronero said:


> Doing away with unnecessary consumption in life would in my opinion mean a basic standard of living, enough to eat, pay bills and exist. As I have understood by your replies not the sort of life that you want to live nor me.
> 
> In my opinion a 'simple life' is an outlook on how one lives and conducts themselves through life, doing away without wasting resources or changing things merely because the colour or style is no longer the 'fashion of the week'.
> 
> ...



I think that is an excellent description. 

I can now say with confidence that I didn't use to live a simple life -I was into clothes, fancy cars and so on - but since I retired and have more time to relax and think I would consider I live a simple life. 
I'm comfortable, wear 'good' clothes and wear the same ones a lot (washed of course), we have sensible but 'good' cars (we really do need one each as we do our own thing) and my most frequent expenditure is on second-hand books from abebooks.uk.

I enjoyed my 'old' life but this one is better.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

The simple life when taken to extremes can get very complicated. I love reading things like this:

The Moneyless Man: A Year of Freeconomic Living: Amazon.co.uk: Mark Boyle: 9781851687879: Books


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

Alcalaina said:


> The simple life when taken to extremes can get very complicated. I love reading things like this:
> 
> The Moneyless Man: A Year of Freeconomic Living: Amazon.co.uk: Mark Boyle: 9781851687879: Books


Thank you, I have just ordered a new copy of that book from ebay for £5.99, it seems like it will be a good and interesting read.

I also came across this interview with him, quite interesting, but as has been mentioned by others, it must be easier to only worry about the immediate things when other things in the background are being taken care of by Society.


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

According to Wikipedia and mentioned in the above interview Mark Boyle holds a BA in Business, so you would expect him to have an understanding of the concepts involving Society and finances.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

Alcalaina said:


> The simple life when taken to extremes can get very complicated. I love reading things like this:
> 
> The Moneyless Man: A Year of Freeconomic Living: Amazon.co.uk: Mark Boyle: 9781851687879: Books


Living without money 
heidemarie schwermer
The documentary *Living Without Money* portraits the life of 68 year old Heidemarie Schwermer, a German woman who made a deliberate choice to stop using money 14 years ago. She cancelled her apartment, gave away all of her belongings and kept nothing but a suitcase full of clothes. This was a decision that changed the entire outlook on her life dramatically. - See more at: Synopsis | Living Without Money

What started out as exchanging favors in lieu of money has now become a lifestyle. She is always trying to help others find a path to a simpler and more harmonic life. She enjoys life in the moment she is living instead of being preoccupied with the futurehttp://livingwithoutmoney.org/about-the-film/synopsis/#sthash.z6inn7jC.dpuf


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

I can't find the book in English, only in Spanish and German. I'm reading it on and off at the moment, but I can't remember in which language, which is a bit strange I know!
I have had a couple of glasses of tinto though...


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> I can't find the book in English, only in Spanish and German. I'm reading it on and off at the moment, but I can't remember in which language, which is a bit strange I know!
> I have had a couple of glasses of tinto though...


This is the seller that I bought the book from...

The Moneyless Man: A Year of Freeconomic Living by Mark Boyle (Paperback, 2011) 1851687874 | eBay


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Living without money
> heidemarie schwermer
> The documentary *Living Without Money* portraits the life of 68 year old Heidemarie Schwermer, a German woman who made a deliberate choice to stop using money 14 years ago. She cancelled her apartment, gave away all of her belongings and kept nothing but a suitcase full of clothes. This was a decision that changed the entire outlook on her life dramatically. - See more at: Synopsis | Living Without Money
> 
> What started out as exchanging favors in lieu of money has now become a lifestyle. She is always trying to help others find a path to a simpler and more harmonic life. She enjoys life in the moment she is living instead of being preoccupied with the futurehttp://livingwithoutmoney.org/about-the-film/synopsis/#sthash.z6inn7jC.dpuf


I have just finished watching this on the internet, quite interesting though I think that her focus on money as being to blame is wrong. She is correct in thinking that possessions are or can be a hindrance and they certainly can restrict freedom.

Money is only a means of indexing a value upon an item so that it can be potentially traded against another item. Without money or even the electronic version of money trade would be difficult, especially international trade.

Just imagine that two people wish to trade, one has a herd of goats and another an orchard with pear trees. The chap with the pears is unlikely to be able to do a trade for a hind leg from one of the goats, it's either all of it or none of it. It is possible that another farmer in another village wants another leg and he may be able to trade for some potatoes and that might help in resolving the situation...but what if only pears can be grown in the surrounding villages, does the owner of the goat want just pears, I doubt it. 

Matters get even more complicated when there are cross border transactions, it's just too complicated to barter on certain things when people are on opposing sides of the world plus the costs in shipping two consignments of value to make the exchange. Bartering can only work if there is a diverse range of products within a manageable distance, it needs both parties to want what the other has.

Bartering restricts choice where as money allows one freedom of choice, they can use all of it too exchange for something or a smaller portion of it for something else or a smaller quantity. It does not have to be money but something that can be made into smaller units so that it can be traded easily, after all trying to swap a 1 Kilo block of gold for a box of oranges is more difficult but it could be much simpler if that 1 Kilo of gold was in 1 gram lumps.

Thinking about some of the posts that have been written in the last couple of weeks with regards to living styles, finances etc. I am not so sure that there is a right way or a wrong way to live life, it is all about choices. If people wish to consume to the point that they are indebted, surely that is up to them as it is their life as long as it does not encroach into the lives of others.

However I do think people should be concerned with what is happening to the planet, it's resources and any possible devastating affect that we may be having upon it.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

oronero said:


> I have just finished watching this on the internet, quite interesting though I think that her focus on money as being to blame is wrong. She is correct in thinking that possessions are or can be a hindrance and they certainly can restrict freedom.
> 
> Money is only a means of indexing a value upon an item so that it can be potentially traded against another item. Without money or even the electronic version of money trade would be difficult, especially international trade.
> 
> ...


I'm reading the book in Spanish because I got it for my husband. That and the fact that it's my bedtime reading means progress is slow...

As you say, money is a way of giving an item value.This system is successful and it's the accepted way to trade in a complex society. Bartering obviously has its shortcomings because most societies start by barting and then introduce some kind of money which maybe shells, tea or tulips!
Why that is exactly though I don't know. You say it restricts choice which I can understand as having some truth, but if we can learn anything by our behaviour over the ages it's that if we need a complicated system, we can build it! Look how complicated and expensive it is to feed our society on oil, yet we manage it. Look how strange our financial system is that people get rich moving around money that doesn't even exist and that few people really understand. That to me is weird, not the bartering
So how could we make bartering the system for cross border and cross trading activities? No idea, but I'm sure it could be done if people, governments, multinationals and billionaires wanted to do it. However, ultimately the interest just isn't there because if someone's not getting rich off the back of another, just where is the motivation?
Maybe for now the idea has to stay small as you say and dependant on who wants goats and pears, but that's not a bad start imo. 
Not exactly the same, but connected is the Transition Network. Have you heard of it? It's a global movement hoping to use local community resources to move away from an oil based society. One of the most famous places involved in this is Totnes. Here's some information that I hope you find interesting
https://www.transitionnetwork.org/about/strategy
I'm sure others will enjoy tearing it to pieces!

Could you provide a link for the film??

Oh and yes, I agree we need to think about the planet and the resouces and can't believe that people still have a throw away attitude to everything from water to disposable razors. Jusy when will Joe Public realise that actions have consequences?


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

The problem with using anything for bartering that involves distance is the transportation of the two commodities, whereas at present it involves the transport of one item in exchange for money. Though I guess if you break it down this already happens in that within the transaction there are two monetary skims also taking place, one for the delivery of the goods by the transport company and the other by the financial institutions that deliver/handle the money. 

If we just bartered goods then the skim would have to be a percentage of the goods themselves, especially if others were involved in the transportation for the exchange to take place. Money or virtual money transactions make trade simple and efficient.

Another issue with bartering is that you need to have the items available to barter, not an issue for the chap with the goats but what if the pears needed for the trade are not yet ripe? He needs the goat for the coming weekend's party not when his fruit is ripe in three months. This might not be such an issue for two locally known traders but may be if they are at opposing sides of the world and this is their first negotiation.

You mention that there are people getting rich from the use of money, well if they skimmed a piece of the goods bartered as payment they would have a surplus of that commodity over time also. 

Heidemarie barters her labour for what she needs, the problem being is that she can only do certain things due to her own personal skills and knowledge or needs of the other party. Her value to others is limited to those skills or some other simple task which she might easily be instructed upon given the short time frame.

If for example two people barter the tidying up of ones shop premises for the exchange of a week's shopping that is easy and straight forward. What happens if on the next day somebody else wants to barter for their weeks shopping and all tasks that needed attention were completed yesterday? It would seem that somebody might be going hungry.

The more I think about it the less I think the problem is money itself, though there is a problem with the reliance upon money. To me the problem is the desire that people have for things that are of no real consequence especially when they do not have the means to acquire it.

I guess hundreds of years ago people grew crops, hunted etc. and bartered goods to exist. I guess the problems began when somebody found a finite resource and didn't want to exchange for what was being offered. 

Here is the link for the documentary.

https://vimeo.com/21063795


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

I'm sure you're right and yes, these things do work....on a very small scale where the parties know and trust one another.
But such a utopian scheme will never be applied universally.
There is however nothing to stop groups of people starting small-scale community enterprises of any type from loan schemes to care for the vulnerable within the immediate neighbourhood, in fact all kinds of socially beneficial enterprises. 
It's how many of our major institutions such as trades unions, education self-help schemes such as the Mechanics Institute, the Co-operative Movement and insurance schemes started life. It's one way to try to rebuild our vanishing social cohesion.
'Think/Act local' would be an important part of my electioneering, were I younger and still resident in the UK. From little acorns mighty oak trees grow, as my Gran used to say.
I am thankful that I am old and past it.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

Money is the must useful and sensible way to acquire what you need, in the many situations where bartering won't work. The problems arise when:-

1. Money_ itself _becomes the commodity, e.g. buying and selling debt, currencies etc, resulting in the "trickle-up effect".

2. Money becomes equated with status - when we start to judge people by their wealth, not what they do with it or what they did to acquire it.

3. Money becomes equated with self-worth - when we consider ourselves successful human beings because we are wealthy. (Similar to 2, but subtly different.)

4. People can no longer tell the difference between price and value.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Money is the must useful and sensible way to acquire what you need, in the many situations where bartering won't work. The problems arise when:-
> 
> 1. Money_ itself _becomes the commodity, e.g. buying and selling debt, currencies etc, resulting in the "trickle-up effect".
> 
> ...


All these problems date from the beginning of recorded history when other objects were used as currency rather than what we describe now as money. So that's 'when'.
They seem to have intensified since the rise of steam power in the mid-eighteenth century and the advent of industrial capitalism.
They are common to all types of social organisation from socialism to fascism.
Very unlikely, given their antiquity, we will abolish them. We have to find better ways of regulating and taming them.

I'm not sure about 2 and 3....they are usually perceptions of traits exhibited by others, never or rarely ourselves.
But definitely agree with 1 and 4.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> I'm not sure about 2 and 3....they are usually perceptions of traits exhibited by others, never or rarely ourselves.


Don't know if you heard this BBC Radio 4 programme, The Price of Inequality, the other day? You were probably walking the dogs. It's worth a listen if you have the time.
BBC Radio 4 - The Price of Inequality, Episode 1

It dealt with the issue of wealth and status in some depth, from a psychological as well as an economic perspective. They interviewed an American millionaire who said he was never very good at anything except making money, so being conspicuously rich makes him feel good about himself. It had never occurred to me before, but it also ties in with the "because you're worth it" phenomenon whereby wearing a $10,000 Rolex watch increases their self-esteem.


----------



## Pesky Wesky (May 10, 2009)

mrypg9 said:


> All these problems date from the beginning of recorded history when other objects were used as currency rather than what we describe now as money. So that's 'when'.
> They seem to have intensified since the rise of steam power in the mid-eighteenth century and the advent of industrial capitalism.
> They are common to all types of social organisation from socialism to fascism.
> Very unlikely, given their antiquity, we will abolish them. We have to find better ways of regulating and taming them.
> ...


Yes, you could be right that abolishing is probably not feasible (and perhaps not desirable) and that regulation and, changing your idea slightly, adaptation is a possibility. Mind you, when we want to we can change dramatically. Look at the techno changes we've had in society which have changed our ways of trading, communicating, and even our day to day living dramatically, and in record time. I still sustain that if all stakeholders want to, a change could be manufactured, the only problem being that they'll never all want to at the same time.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Don't know if you heard this BBC Radio 4 programme, The Price of Inequality, the other day? You were probably walking the dogs. It's worth a listen if you have the time.
> BBC Radio 4 - The Price of Inequality, Episode 1
> 
> It dealt with the issue of wealth and status in some depth, from a psychological as well as an economic perspective. They interviewed an American millionaire who said he was never very good at anything except making money, so being conspicuously rich makes him feel good about himself. It had never occurred to me before, but it also ties in with the "because you're worth it" phenomenon whereby wearing a $10,000 Rolex watch increases their self-esteem.


Yes, I heard it.  People are odd, aren't they.... I like having, say, a nice new pair of boots not because I feel 'better' or more valuable or loveable because I have them but because of them in themselves....hard to explain, really, and it's a feeling that alters over time. Nice things are nice in themselves as long as you don't have too many of them, then you lose the joy. But I can't understand anyone who thinks having a Rolex makes them a better person. How, exactly: a watch isn't a magic wand that can make a person kinder, more generous....

Inequality across the western world especially in Spain and the UK is reaching obscene proportions and the gap is set to increase even more unless capital can be pinned down and taxed in some way. Money earned from money is far outstripping wages and unless productivity increases substantially will go on doing so.

There must at some point in the future be what I believe is now known as a 'tipping point'. It won't be in the form of the classic 'revolution', I'm sure of that. It may be by means of what some Marxists call a cultural revolution but not in the form that they would expect. I've no idea what could push things over the edge - a major war involving Europe? the effects of global warming? I really don't know and it won't be in our lifetimes, I suspect. But surely even the dimmest person can see that humanity has become like a species of lemmings, or, for those of a scriptural bent, Gadarene swine, well on our way to the cliff edge.

Well did the old Roman cry 'O tempora! O mores!.. Or as Terry Wogan once said, Sic transit Gloria Swanson.
It's no joking matter, really, but if you couldn't laugh you'd cry.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Pesky Wesky said:


> Yes, you could be right that abolishing is probably not feasible (and perhaps not desirable) and that regulation and, changing your idea slightly, adaptation is a possibility. Mind you, when we want to we can change dramatically. Look at the techno changes we've had in society which have changed our ways of trading, communicating, and even our day to day living dramatically, and in record time. I still sustain that if all stakeholders want to, a change could be manufactured, the only problem being that they'll never all want to at the same time.


I hate using modish terms...but I think the big obstacle to change is that we no longer have what is called a 'meta-narrative', a 'big idea', like Christianity or some other transcendental religion or a secular, political religion with an idea most of us could believe in.
John Gray, my guru, wrote that he saw religion as a 'useful myth' in that it gave purpose, meaning and both personal and collective identity. I think he was right but we live in an age of profound scepticism, cynicism, even, which is corrosive and destructive of relationships and the social fabric. 
Nobody believes in anything anymore. Nature abhors vacuums, it's said, so, to follow Alca's post, into the space goes Rolex watches and similar stuff. 
Sad.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> Don't know if you heard this BBC Radio 4 programme, The Price of Inequality, the other day? You were probably walking the dogs. It's worth a listen if you have the time.
> BBC Radio 4 - The Price of Inequality, Episode 1
> 
> It dealt with the issue of wealth and status in some depth, from a psychological as well as an economic perspective. They interviewed an American millionaire who said he was never very good at anything except making money, so being conspicuously rich makes him feel good about himself. It had never occurred to me before, but it also ties in with the "because you're worth it" phenomenon whereby wearing a $10,000 Rolex watch increases their self-esteem.


Have you read 'The Spirit Level' by Wilkinson and Pickett? Also 'What Money Can't Buy' by Michael Sandel?


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> But I can't understand anyone who thinks having a Rolex makes them a better person. How, exactly: a watch isn't a magic wand that can make a person kinder, more generous....
> 
> Inequality across the western world especially in Spain and the UK is reaching obscene proportions and the gap is set to increase even more unless capital can be pinned down and taxed in some way. Money earned from money is far outstripping wages and unless productivity increases substantially will go on doing so.
> 
> ...


I see the Rolex watch/WAG bag thing as a low self esteem or insecurity problem - deep down the people to whom such things are really important don't feel that others will regard them as successful, sophisticated or worthy of knowing if they don't belong to the "club" of having these instantly recognisable totems (well, recognisable to those who set store by them), and other people's opinion of them really matters to them. Bit sad, really.

I do agree with the rest of your post, though. It seems more and more all the time that our society is reaching the stage of decadence that preceded the fall of earlier civilisations.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

mrypg9 said:


> Have you read 'The Spirit Level' by Wilkinson and Pickett? Also 'What Money Can't Buy' by Michael Sandel?


I haven't, but they might be in the OH's "library" which now takes up most of our landing as well as his room. I'll have a look, though I'm still working my way through the British Empire MOOC reading list plus preparatory stuff for my next course on drugs and addiction. So many books, so little time! I can't remember when I last read a novel.

Regarding the wealth gap, some of Peston's interviewees seemed to think that once it is universally acknowledged to be detrimental to capitalism (i.e. when the 99% can no longer afford to buy the goods it produces) it will start to self-regulate, with higher wages and/or smaller profits, combined with a global attack on tax avoidance by governments. I suppose that would be a kind of revolution in itself.


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

mrypg9 said:


> Yes, I heard it.  People are odd, aren't they.... I like having, say, a nice new pair of boots not because I feel 'better' or more valuable or loveable because I have them but because of them in themselves....hard to explain, really, and it's a feeling that alters over time. Nice things are nice in themselves as long as you don't have too many of them, then you lose the joy. But I can't understand anyone who thinks having a Rolex makes them a better person. How, exactly: a watch isn't a magic wand that can make a person kinder, more generous....


Back in the late 90's I bought a rather fancy Italian motorcycle, I used it for dashing down to London at weekends and it was generally locked away whilst I used a van for work and all other mid week activity. The amount of people who could not believe that I owned such a machine as I did not 'parade, it and myself, up and down the high street' was shocking to me. 

It would seem to me, by some of the comments, that if those that passed the comment actually owned the motorcycle they would themselves be 'parading up and down the high street', in a form of showing off, a rather distasteful attribute in my opinion. I bought it because I liked it and enjoyed the sensation of riding it. Owning it did not change me, I knew that I was still the same maverick fool that I always have been, continue to be and probably always will be. 



mrypg9 said:


> Inequality across the western world especially in Spain and the UK is reaching obscene proportions and the gap is set to increase even more unless capital can be pinned down and taxed in some way. Money earned from money is far outstripping wages and unless productivity increases substantially will go on doing so.


Capital, if you are referring to money, is not the issue, after all with quantitative easing (QE) as more money is printed then its true value decreases. What happens is that commodities rise in value, you need more money to purchase them.

Remember money is usually taxed when earned, so those who save money have already paid their proportion of tax and theoretically if the money is used for investments then that gain is also taxed.

I believe that is the growth in asset value which is the real issue and to address that there most Governments levy a form of capital gains tax when the asset is liquified into money. 

Asset value growth can and often is at higher rate than inflation, this is where the problem exists in my opinion.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Alcalaina said:


> I haven't, but they might be in the OH's "library" which now takes up most of our landing as well as his room. I'll have a look, though I'm still working my way through the British Empire MOOC reading list plus preparatory stuff for my next course on drugs and addiction. So many books, so little time! I can't remember when I last read a novel.
> 
> Regarding the wealth gap, some of Peston's interviewees seemed to think that once it is universally acknowledged to be detrimental to capitalism (i.e. when the 99% can no longer afford to buy the goods it produces) it will start to self-regulate, with higher wages and/or smaller profits, combined with a global attack on tax avoidance by governments. I suppose that would be a kind of revolution in itself.


I'm reading 'Orientalism' (Said) as a spin-off of the MOOC on Empire. Heavy goingI'm so pleased that you pointed me to these short courses.

Yes, I tend to agree with that. But before everything implodes, new means of credit will no doubt be invented so people can buy things.

I'm not too sure about Lynn's point about people buying Rolex watches etc.as a sign of insecurity. Very wealthy people can more or less do as they like these days. It's the poorer people who are insecure, surely...

My son has a Rolex, given him by his wife on his birthday some years back. He's far from insecure, although I suspect him of creeping Tory tendencies...He just likes well-designed things and they can afford it. Similarly I like nice things, I can't run to a Rolex and to me it would put me out of my class, if you know what I mean (and increase the likelihood of being mugged for the wretched thing). But I did buy the most expensive watch I could afford, expecting it o last my lifetime and beyond.
Sometimes those who can afford to buy expensive things if they are indeed of good quality, aesthetically pleasant and likely to last.
My Gran used to say that poor people couldn't afford to buy cheap.
But all within context and means, of course.


----------



## Lynn R (Feb 21, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> I'm reading 'Orientalism' (Said) as a spin-off of the MOOC on Empire. Heavy goingI'm so pleased that you pointed me to these short courses.
> 
> Yes, I tend to agree with that. But before everything implodes, new means of credit will no doubt be invented so people can buy things.
> 
> ...


Buying good quality, well made and well designed things which are expensive is one thing - buying the best known brand names for the name is quite another. There are other brands of watches, for example, better and more expensive than Rolex, but not so well known or recognisable, and less flashy in appearance.

I go for well made items of good quality myself, buying cheap is more often than not false economy because things don't last, but I avoid buying anything with a logo on if I can avoid it (difficult to avoid with sports gear because practically everything has them). I have no wish to be used as a free, walking advertising hoarding.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

oronero said:


> Back in the late 90's I bought a rather fancy Italian motorcycle, I used it for dashing down to London at weekends and it was generally locked away whilst I used a van for work and all other mid week activity. The amount of people who could not believe that I owned such a machine as I did not 'parade, it and myself, up and down the high street' was shocking to me.
> 
> It would seem to me, by some of the comments, that if those that passed the comment actually owned the motorcycle they would themselves be 'parading up and down the high street', in a form of showing off, a rather distasteful attribute in my opinion. I bought it because I liked it and enjoyed the sensation of riding it. Owning it did not change me, I knew that I was still the same maverick fool that I always have been, continue to be and probably always will be.
> 
> ...


I understand your first point. Was the bike a Ducati, by the way?

The point about capital earning a better return than wages holds. I'm talking high-net worth here, and in a sense you're agreeing with me because as you rightly say assets grow at a higher rate than inflation. If you look at productivity over the western world in the medium term, say fifty years, the rate of growth evens out at 0.8%. With the working population falling even taking account of immigration it is very unlikely that the rate will increase over the next fifty years. 
The return on wealth, on the other hand, is rising and has a greater yield. 99% of this wealth will be handed down as inheritance and added to by succeeding generations. 
You and I may be peeved at QE and, if we have debts, low inflation, but the wealth of the super-rich will be unaffected. 
The old adage is true: 'to them that hath shall be given'. My grandsons are fortunate and are set to have stable, well-paid careers. When their parents die they will inherit a considerable amount to add to what they have accumulated. The same with their offspring.
My mum left £300 after her funeral was paid by the insurance. I worked and although I bought and sold a few properties I never made that much and spent it anyway so I shall hopefully leave nothing. I had nothing to start with....


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Lynn R said:


> Buying good quality, well made and well designed things which are expensive is one thing - buying the best known brand names for the name is quite another. There are other brands of watches, for example, better and more expensive than Rolex, but not so well known or recognisable, and less flashy in appearance.
> 
> I go for well made items of good quality myself, buying cheap is more often than not false economy because things don't last, but I avoid buying anything with a logo on if I can avoid it (difficult to avoid with sports gear because practically everything has them). I have no wish to be used as a free, walking advertising hoarding.


Not all Rolex watches are flashy, some are quite attractive and unobtrusive. But I agree, I don't like walking around with labels showing although I confess I did in the 1980s .
But a lot of people did daft things then and at least I never voted for Thatcher....


----------



## oronero (Aug 24, 2012)

mrypg9 said:


> The point about capital earning a better return than wages holds. I'm talking high-net worth here, and in a sense you're agreeing with me because as you rightly say assets grow at a higher rate than inflation. If you look at productivity over the western world in the medium term, say fifty years, the rate of growth evens out at 0.8%. With the working population falling even taking account of immigration it is very unlikely that the rate will increase over the next fifty years.
> The return on wealth, on the other hand, is rising and has a greater yield. 99% of this wealth will be handed down as inheritance and added to by succeeding generations.


I watched a number of wealth generation documentaries on the net, the skill seems to be in spending your surplus cash on things that can generate you an income, examples of this are buying assets that can be rented and thus generate an income ( property, home appliances, tools, even somebody else's labour). The personal property was not viewed as an asset as it generally generated no money other than potential growth in value over a period of time but that is speculation really.

The spending of money for things such as the latest gadget, car, fashion items etc for personal use was deemed a poor use of surplus cash as items generally didn't generate an income and generally cost you money through devaluation.

Speculation is also a means of potentially obtaining a decent return but it is nothing but a gamble as we cannot be sure of the future value that something may have or what can happen before we get to that future point in time. 

Before anybody starts having a go at those that speculate, remember that large farmers are speculating with their fields and what they can grow on them. They are calculating that when they plant the seed that it will give a certain yield, that the weather will be favourable and that the price eventually paid for the crop will be sufficient to cover all the costs incurred. 

From a personal perspective as I am asset rich and cash poor, QE does not affect me other than making my sales a little more difficult as others may struggle to raise the money to pay for the items.




mrypg9 said:


> You and I may be peeved at QE and, if we have debts, low inflation, but the wealth of the super-rich will be unaffected.
> The old adage is true: 'to them that hath shall be given'. My grandsons are fortunate and are set to have stable, well-paid careers. When their parents die they will inherit a considerable amount to add to what they have accumulated. The same with their offspring.


To be honest with you I hold very few funds in financial institutions, I really do not trust them, most of my wealth (if you can call it that) has been invested into tooling to manufacture what I do and sadly whatever I do have in surplus I speculate with.

So far the returns on my speculations have far out-striped the potential growth forecast that any investment fund manager has ever shown me. I should point out that I do use my inside knowledge and experience gained in business to decide on what to 'take a punt' on though, it is not a blind guess.




mrypg9 said:


> My mum left £300 after her funeral was paid by the insurance. I worked and although I bought and sold a few properties I never made that much and spent it anyway so I shall hopefully leave nothing. I had nothing to start with....


About 8 years ago I lost nearly a couple of hundred thousand pounds of my own money, I literally had little more than the contents of a bag and some very good friends who gave me a roof over my head for a while and really good moral support. I am almost back at the same point again, though it has been a rather hard journey, as I am sure all the journeys are of those that accrue whatever wealth they have.

I am still in my late 40's so I know that I need to accrue money to pay my way for whatever amount of time I have left in this world. I guess if I haven't spent it by the time I am dead the grandson might get it, whatever it might be!

P.S. Yes you were right, it was one of them loud red things on wheels. I should point out that I make my living by making obsolete and performance parts for collectors and racers, I don't do anything honourable for society except getting the wealthy to part with some of their money.


----------

