Just read commonwealth bank declaring 9.7 billion dollars in profits primarily due to home loans - https://www.9news.com.au/national/commonwealth-bank-announce…
What if the banks never offered home loans as in there was no such thing?
All you had to do was buy with what you have in your account/under your mattress.
Would we have been better off without crazy interest rates and people have to slog all their lives with a 25/30-year loan?
Maybe not - you wouldnt need to save 25/30 years as the prices would be low as everyone has less money to spend? Also there would be no equity garbage as banks would be offering no such thing right?
Young people would have less to spend. The elderly and corporations that have existed for decades and have already saved the money would have no issue paying cash.
So it would be an even worse classist system than we have now. If you're lucky enough to have parents who own property they can just use the rent money to buy you another one. If you're born to renter you have even less chance of getting ahead than you do today.
Fair point but same is the case now? A lot of young families in our suburb who recently bought a house (average price is 1.4mil) when I spoke to them about deposit I was expecting a story of how they skipped dinners/holidays etc but it was more of Bank of Mom and Dad.
The gap would still be similar.
@confusedhuh: Not really… what you haven't really counted is the number of people who have been able to afford to buy a house on loan (without mum and dad), as opposed to slogging their whole lives/careers, and finding out it is less than enough to buy the house outright.
Moreover, with the "bank of Mum and Dad" scenario, most people help out their children by contributing to the deposit. Occasionally, it's a helping hand with some of the mortgage payments. Only the really, really wealthy buy houses in cash outright (and most of them don't even do that).
With your scenario, only the really wealthy will be able to buy a house at all, and they'll become even wealthier, by buying new houses and renting them out, where the renter finances the owner's next place.
@confusedhuh: Yes but this is a very small aspect of a much larger global financial system.
Banks loan out money because governments/central banks loan out money to them to boost the economy.
Things require money to be done, many jobs exist because many companies are running losses/require large amounts of capital to get started and are spurred by funded money (really simple explanation).
It's a question of economics.
Economic growth/development in your scenario would be so slow that it would not be able to keep up pace with the demands of the actual population.
It's sort of like how we have a huge global population only because of nitrogen fertilisers yielding multiples of crop yields, if this wasnt the case the world would literally starve to death.
Loans serve as an accelerator to be able to get things done at a pace in line with population growth.
@confusedhuh: Yes and No.
Getting rid of Home Loans changes everything, some positive and some negative. Since you said ALL LOANS that would have a Net Negative effect.
The way the housing market operates in Australia, is that it is essentially a Pyramid Scheme. The have-nots essentially pay exorbitant rental fees, this gets paid to landlords, they share some of the profits with the councils and workers (plumbers, electrician, carpenters, builders), and then they take a small percentage of profits, and then pay it up the chain to The Banker.
House prices increase, which means bank repayments increase, which means landlord fees increase, which means that rental prices get raised… and it is the have-nots that foot the bill.
Interest rates increase, which means bank repayments increase, which means landlord fees increase, which means that rental prices get raised… and it is the have-nots that again foot the bill.
As long as there is incentive to make a profit off the backs of the working class, and have-nots, then there will always be people who try to hoard as much property as possible. And there will be people who try to rig the system to gain interest as much as possible.
So it's not a supply vs demand issue at all. It's about profiting, and textbook definition of "rent-seeking behaviour".
The solution isn't to abolish Mortgages, or Banks in general. They have their place. The solution is to recognise the problem, and address the problem itself, instead of what the typical politician does and they barely provide temporary relief for the symptom. If you have a nasty cut on your hand, you don't put a tiny bandaid on your finger and say "well done". But you also do not cut off your forearm either.
The solution, in my opinion is twofold.
- First, we break the cycle and educate children properly about Laws, Taxes, Economy, and Useful information. We instill in them a good moral compass, and we challenge their intellect, so tomorrow we have a full-army of people who are intelligent AND wise, and they solve the issues of the past, present, and future.
- Second, we simply remove the incentive for profits in the property market. Sure some ignorant people will be hurt, and a few good people will also suffer, but the majority of the damage will occur to the unfaithful and bad-actors. It's a worthwhile compromise. We're talking about housing here, which is a homo sapien necessity. Say hypothetically they did a 5-year freeze starting in 2020, so rent-price raises are illegal until 2025. Then they compare inflation from 2025-to-2026, for instance it is 2.8%. And it becomes legal to increase rent prices in 2026 upto 2.7%. Then repeat for next year. This way, housing tracks against the economy/inflation and it becomes an unattractive prospect for investors. This negatively impacts The Banker, the executives don't get their bonuses. But the Aussie Battler has a higher quality of living/lower cost of living. We can apply the same concept to other basic necessities to make them unattractive for profit making vehicles, as that is what is best for society (air, water, food, shelter, safety, health, education, communication…). As things become less necessary and more of a luxury, they become less societal needs and more of a want, then they can have more and more profitable business. Afterall, we should be wise and learn from the failures (and successes) from other nations, we don't have to be fully capitalistic or fully communistic, we can pick and choose to see what fits and works for our unique nation.
@Kangal: Investment into property is discretionary. Your proposals would drive away investors (who provide 94% of housing in Australia) into other investments (shares, bonds, crypto etc…). This would have a negative effect on the housing as less development would be built.
The problem is that Australians have a perception of evil landlords, while the absolute majority own 1 or 2 properties (91% of them) and are mum and dad investors.
@duchy: That's the fallacy I've discovered; investors and developers don't provide housing. We've been conditioned to think this true. Their primary motive is profit.
Housing is required for regular citizens, it is paid by them, and it is provided by the actual builders.
Without certain investors/developers, the property development market will cool temporarily, but it will bounce back to normal levels. Because the need and demand is there. There's little need for middleman, especially when it comes to the capital cities. The resulting difference would be that prices will reflect more so the natural supply and demand of the market, rather than manipulation by few powerful/wealthy actors.
Still a much lower cash price though as prices are inflated hugely by the ability to borrow. You only have to look at what happened to house prices when the RBA cash rate was 0.1% and Lowe was stupidly telling everyone it would stay that way until 2024. Borrowing increases demand which increases prices.
If bank borrowing did not exist, there would be massively less money competing in the market and therefore far, far lower house prices. The demand simply would not be there. Likewise if interest rates were still at the levels reached in the 1980s, prices would be way lower because re[payments cost so much more to cover.
You're saying to go back to a fuedal system where the lords would own everything and we would all rent. Property would all be owned by old money and nobody else would have a chance
Agreed, house prices might be lower but it would take you 25 years to save up enough money to buy it outright during which time you are paying rent every year (which goes up). Then there's the issue of house prices going up over a span of 25 years. Currently, the interest that I pay the bank is lower than the rent I would need to pay if I had rented my house instead of taking out a huge mortgage with the bank.
However, I get to enjoy living in my house buying improvements on it knowing that the interest (aka rent to the bank) is meant to get cheaper and cheaper every year as I pay it off (assuming that rate rises eventually stop lol).
All you had to do was buy with what you have in your account/under your mattress.
So you pretty much won't be able to afford anything? Material costs would still remain the same so house prices won't drop down significantly.
Friends will probably pool their money together to buy a house.
International buyers who pay cash will earn even more from renting it out.
I meant the house prices would have never gone this crazy up right? Material cost are high due to demand/supply economics.
Material cost are high due to demand/supply economics
Lol, if there is no demand then no on will have a house. Where do you want people to live?
There will be demand but the prices would not skyrocket like they are today for e.g. building apartments like crazy causing a heavy demand for materials
@confusedhuh: What? The demand comes from population increase. The demand would stay the same. Your username checks out.
We'd be in a worse position than we are now. It's not entirely about banks, banks are the means for people to afford homes, but it's all about demand. That's why the same exact house at the same exact age will not only draw interest from different demographics, but be valued at vastly different prices.
House prices are all about land costs - material costs are only about 20%-30%
If people are having to pool together then that is lower demand, as opposed to them all being able to buy one each. Therefore lower prices. If there are less competitors in the market to beat, you won't have to pay as much.
all the bikies and viet gangster already buying houses with cash, so it is possible.
just dont check ozb too often and you are set for good saving plan
haha deep pull.
absolute gengstaaah move aye
have to slog all their lives with a 25/30-year loan?
Purchase within your means and there is no slog.
Thats the current problem right? People expect the banks to tell them what they can afford!!!
There are strong incentives to pay as much as possible for a house so people will continue doing that. The fixed costs in buying and selling (stamp duty, agents fees, removalists, loss of social connections) are so high that most people want to buy a house and stay put for decades. If you're buying when younger your income will nearly always increase in subsequent years even if just due to inflation.
With inflation at 3% the real cost of any debt over 30 years is under half of what it is when you sign the mortgage. Therefor if people are incentivised to take as much money as they can and there will always be someone at the auction willing to push themselves that little bit further (for the same income) than the conservative buyer who purchases within their means.
I still enjoy that they exclude property from inflation calculations so they can claim its still only 3%.
But then seek to curtail inflation by pushing up the cash rate which acts almost entirely by driving up the cost of borrowing for a house.
@mitt: That does flow on to reduced disposable income to spend on other things though which is why they do it.
@mitt: Inflation calculates rising cost of consumables. You can't consume land. So that's why it's not included in inflation figure.
Building costs on the other hand are part of inflation figure. Check your facts.
@lubos: Yes inflation tracks rising cost of consumables. I am saying it should track the falling purchasing power of each dollar. But thanks for the correction. I am sure your brain is very large.
@mitt: But inflation figure does already track purchasing power of each dollar.
Are you suggesting that inflation figure should include rising price of real estate & shares too? Why? All of that are investments which are valued by future cash flows. Including that would mean that during recession or depression, "your" inflation figure could easily be minus 20% even though the cost of bread and other basics would be actually rising.
This is why purchasing price of investments is not included in inflation figure. It would be a lot more volatile because now inflation figure would depend on whether people have positive sentiment about the future or negative rather than simply measuring "how much bread can I buy for that dollar"
Still a slog, just a manageable one.
Without banks currency would have much lesser value, instead of working a job for money we would return to feudalism - your family would be all be working on a farm under the control of your landlord (who would literally be a lord) and you would never have the opportunity to become a free man.
Maybe true, but there are variants of banking that are different to what we have now and actually designed in the interest of society and not the bank itself. For example this
but there are variants of banking that are different
Like lease-to-own, which is a concept I found quite interesting.
Yeah, maybe a little better but it's still pretty much the same profit-seeking banking system, just dressed up to look different from what the infidels have.
Banks, like pretty much everything else, serve the interests of their owners. The only way to make a bank serve people is to make it owned by people.
@Richfield: Your pedantry aside (and fair enough, scrutiny is allowed here) some are owned by the state. I think you will find no people own the state; in fact the state also "owns" the people. So even though I think what I wrote is still true, I should have said:
The only way to make a bank serve THE people is to make it owned by THE people.
@miwahni: Sort of. But they are still operated within an overarching system where profits are most important. Most non-profits still invest for "rainy days" / growth / some other excuse, rather than be fully purposed to be truly non-profit. A true mutual bank requires a bit of an overhaul in mindset.
1 trillion in asssets. Profit of 10 billion.
Not good return on investment
Operating expenses of $11.2b though, with operating income of $24.4b. AUM is useful for a market cap comparison but not necessarily for a return on capital without understanding the market dynamics first. Comparing AUM between a Superannuation fund, a full-service bank, and a PE / PI firm is going to give radically different return ratios.
Banks profitability is measured by two key metrics 1. interest net margin and 2.ROE
most banks mortgage book assets are matched up with liability
imagine if people were given basic economics education in school….
go look up money multiplier in economics 101
House prices would've still gone up. It's one of the most basic economic rules ie supply vs demand. There's a finite supply of housing and land but an ever growing demand as the population increases. Demand outstrips supply therefore prices rise.
There's also been a failure to invent or invest in new transportation technologies. Freeways were built in the 60s and 70s and are now at capacity, most train lines were built over 100 years ago. And even then the top speed for Australian trains and cars has been constant for nearly 100 years.
Combine this with growing population and you need to choose between living near important locations (CBD, beach, harbour) and living somewhere where the land isn't so expensive you can have a reasonable backyard and lifestyle. If you want both you need to pay more and more.
But muh sPeEd KiLlZ
Banks should never have been allowed to over near zero interest rate 40 year home loans… but they were.
House prices would've still gone up.
Probably to a lesser degree as what we’ve seen in the past decade as rates have dropped.
Supply and demand plays a factor but interest rates also play a big factor in house prices.
Probably to a lesser degree
Probably, but then rents would also probably be higher as even more people would be forced into renting rather than paying off a loan.
Question is where will the houses for people to rent come from? If people have to pay full amount upfront; very few people will have enough cash for multiple houses - one to live in and others to rent out. The only people who can afford to buy would be the millionaires and they'll probably invest in other areas with better returns than housing. So, no where for people to rent - which means rent would be high to make it worthwhile for investors.
@MrHyde: Banks, corporations, companies specifically set up to own and rent property etc would likely make up the bulk of ownership. I could see corps even offering it as a perk, ie work for us and get this rental for 10% off.
Definitely, not probably.
You mistakenly assume that population growth automatically means more demand. Australia is one of very few countries where buying a home is seen as a rite of passage - ie you ain't cool if you still rent or live at home. In many parts of the world where the population is much bigger than ours, this sentiment doesn't exist. People in Asian or some European countries dont care about buying a home at 25, if ever. It might sound crazy, but the only people who buy a home are those that need it. Shocking.
Every house has an owner. If a family is renting, someone still owns the house. The demand is still there except it is demand from an investor instead of from someone who wants to live there themselves.
I grew up in Asia…
In the country I grew up in, at least, a lot of people don't even think about buying a home because a huge portion of the population lives paycheck to paycheck. It's not because the desire to own a home does not exist.
Home mortgages are not as popular over there than it is over here, and the situation is many times worse. The rich just keep getting richer off the rent, and acquire more and more properties, and the poor just keep getting poorer. I have personally visited friends in places where 8 people live in a 4mx4m room, with a shared rice cooker, and toilet, washing and shower facilities are shared across 20 other similar rooms in the same complex.
Are we doing away with just home loans, or all loans?
Ah well havent thought that deep - lets just say all loans
Banks are businesses that make profits by buying and selling a product: money.
They are supplying their product for more than it costs them to buy. When you deposit cash into your bank account, you're actually lending them your money.
They then take your money to lend to people, businesses, government organisations etc, but their interest rate is higher.
Loans are important for the economy — for starters, businesses would not flourish or even get off the ground if they couldn't obtain startup capital from their bank.
They would still exist for safe storage of money. There would be a lot more home invasions if people knew you had enough savings under your mattress to buy a house.
They would still exist for safe storage of money. There would be a lot more home invasions if people knew you had enough savings under your mattress to buy a house.
So banks really are just there to literally keep the rich's money away from the poor?
Imagine House prices without banks offering home loans?
Or imagine house prices without record low interest rates……. As rates have come down, prices have gone up!
Imagine the how good the environment would be if we didn't invent fossil fuels.
Imagine how much fun would be if we didn't have to work for money.
Those that think credit is to blame need to do some reading into how money (and in particular credit) formed our economy and society.
Just Imagine…
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You…
Not a bad song for a wife beater and child abuser.
if we are speaking from the dawn of time, the concept of loans didn't exist, you would be no better off, everything would re balance.
may be worse off as no businesses would ever take off.
like saying if we didn't need food to survive we would all be rich, then everything else would go up in price, and we wouldn't have flatulence and there goes the one true thing that all of mankind can laugh about despite religion/views
Just look at the Islamic world. Both getting and paying interest is haram. Forbidden. And in the modern world they have had to resort to complicated means to get around that prohibition in the Quran. So if you get interest, because you can't avoid getting it, you have to get rid of it in a way that doesn't benefit you. Like donating it to charity. And an Islamic bank can't offer the sort of mortgage banks in the West can. They buy the house. You pay a rent-like payment each month until you'd paid it all off and ownership transfers to you. Not being able to charge interest was about Islam prohibiting the rich from exploiting the poor.
If you wonder about some of the stereotypes and prejudices against the Jews, and why so many of them still these days are involved in banking and finance, you should look at old Christian laws prohibiting "usury". Charging interest. Those laws didn't apply to Jews so they became the money lenders and the bankers. The ones who could charge interest. There's even a Shakespearean play about it, The Merchant of Venice, but of course the context isn't explained to kids when they study the play at school.
Years ago when I lived in Sydney they was a co-operative that provided interest-free home loans. You deposited your savings. You didn't get interest. The amount you deposited gave you the right to tickets in a lottery. If you won you got the next loan available. You didn't pay interest on the loan, but as you repaid it that gave them the funds to make loans to other people. I believe the "consumer protection" laws killed it. They required that people be able to be pull out the money they had deposited on demand, and the co-operative's business model couldn't work if it had to hold a lot of its deposits in cash to allow for withdrawals on demand.
Perfect explanation of the stereotypes and prejudices against the Jewish population in Europe and how they came about. It was a dangerous job to be a lender. Even lender to the kings.
The Islamic loans are quite funny really. They are exactly the same as a standard loan, but they simply call the repayments rent.
In the UK it was explained to me. The bank owns your house (they are on the title, not you) will you pay for the islamic compliant version of a home loan.
There is some great minds in Islamic finance.
We have some protections, but we don't really own the home when the bank has 80% of the equity via the loan either. They are fundamentally the same thing.
fundamentally the same thing.
No they are not.
The bank has an 80% economic interest and a charge over your property (so you can't sell it without paying them back), if you sell it and the bank doesn't recover their money then you are personally on the hook.
Where as if the bank's name on the title. They own it and you have an economic interest.
If the Islamic bank goes bust you probably join a queue as a creditor and the liquidators will sell your house. I am sure there is a clause that prevents that but whether that will stand is another matter. You'll have many sleepless nights.
Our banks you'll just refinance away if the bank goes bust.
@netjock: No, in terms of borrowing the money, and the repayment it is fundamentally the same.
Whether you're paying 5% 'rent' on the 300k the bank owns, or you pay 5% interest on the 300k you have left to repay it makes no difference.
The only difference may be the legal issues from the bank going bust, or you defaulting. If what you say is true, it's the Islamic banks just add negatives for renaming interest to rent.
Can people stop broadly blaming banks for house prices. Government (Finance & Infrastructure Planning) and Regulatory agencies (APRA/RBA) are equally/more responsibile.
As mokr stated :1 trillion in asssets. Profit of 10 billion.
As a banker myself, this is what we're told from day dot. We handle a truly enormous amount of assets and the returns made from that are marginal when looking at the entire portfolio. A quote that stuck with me that I was told in my first week was: "Tell me another business that would remain operational, with a profit margin of 2%. I can't imagine your local grocer or other small business existing with a margin less than <25% if not 50%".
Banks are highly efficient institutions that operate for the benefit of the economy (and themselves ofc) allowing the transfer of fund from those who have an excess to those needing it, thus allowing for economic development. When thinking about the 'absurd profits' that media love to spew every 6 months, about 60-70% of those profits are returned to shareholders in the form of dividends (the remainder is re-invested) and around the same % of those shares are owned by Australian shareholders (broad average of Australian majors) so around $5bn of that profit (CBA's case of $9.7bn) goes right back to the bank accounts/superfunds of Australians.
Yes this is a biased view, and yes there are impacts that bank's decisions have made that have impacted house prices, however as stated by others, a large component of these prices rises are due to a lack of infrastructure development outside of cities (and within as well), significantly pushing up demand in small pockets of the country whilst restricting supply. This is further assisted by negative-gearing relief (a uniquely Australian thing) as well as a lack of government/RBA intervention to focus funding on productive financing (lending $ to a business allows for more $ to be made) rather than broadly decreasing rates and allowing a lion's share to go to residential portfolios.
Whilst banks are the middle-men that allow this to happen, intervention needs to come from higher up to enact change, but given a significant % of national wealth is now tied up into property it seems that allowing such action to occur is quite unlikely. People also love to blame banks for "printing money" (which in some aspects is not too much of a misstatement) given Aussie banks hold about 17-18% capital (international basis) and lend at a 20x ratio of cash held on hand (leverage ratio of around 5%), however again Australia/APRA has one of the strictest capital requirements worldwide and our Big 4 are the most capitalised banks in the world (i.e. on an international basis our banks hold about 25-50% more capital than our comparable peers (US/UK/Canada) and 200-300% more than equivalent Chinese ones)
Also OP please realise that storing money under a mattress is both highly unwise and also lends your money to go down in net value (you don't make any interest whilst inflation still happens). Sure you can store that money in a bank but then you need to account for the fact that to earn your 2-3% interest, the bank (which views your deposit as a liability) needs to lend that money out elsewhere to make a sufficient enough return to pay your interest.
I do however understand the perspective you're coming from, and would like to see in future a greater shift in funding (loan issuances) to be in business/industry vs residential (as in other developed countries) to allow for a more productive economy.
Banks don't operate for the benefit of the economy - they are a private business operating for the benefit of their shareholders. Banks didn't increase their lending for real estate out of the goodness of their hearts they did it out of short-term profit motive.
Democracy involves subordinating financial dynamics to serve economic balance and growth – and taxing rentier income or keeping basic monopolies in the public domain. Untaxing or privatizing property income “frees” it to be pledged to the banks, to be capitalized into larger loans. Financed by debt leveraging, asset-price inflation increases rentier wealth while indebting the economy at large.
Governments have not been doing their job - which was the unstated objective of the neoliberal economic ideology.
Knew I was going to get a comment like this.
Banks operating for shareholder profit and for the benefit of the economy aren’t mutually exclusive objectives. Most businesses (particularly SME’s which are the primary employers across the nation) don’t have direct access to debt/equity markets and thus require funding via a banking intermediary.
Without a bank many of these wouldn’t exist and thus a whole heap of our GDP/employment and innovation would cease to exist.
My comment is realistic and isn’t trying to highlight some ideological flaws and it’s why in my argument I’ve noted the need to shift financing flows (through regulatory actions) away from residential property to commercial endeavours. This would make Oz more productive
They can be mutually exclusive though.
A bank stretching it's waist, and taking profits can/does mean less funds for people who could have invested that back into society, and usually in a more efficient manner.
As money gets more and more concentrated, the people in charge of using that for society, generally get further out of touch with the average median citizen.
In other words, money is more efficient in your own hands, rather than someone else's. We've seen this firsthand as explosive economic growth in third-world nations, where women entered the market being allowed to manage funds/groceries for their families rather than relying only on their breadwinner husbands.
I think with the profits banks make, they should give back to the OzBargain community.
I'd be happy with 1% of their profits
I'd be happier with even less than that. It still means Lambos for everyone here except jv.
without access to home loans, there would be much less demand, and the ass would fall right out of the building industry & they would all need a second trade/job for the downtime between projects. also it would turn us into japan, or migrant style housing with 3-4 generations in the one house w/ a lot of bunk beds, and the grandparents treated like royalty because they own the house and will hand it down
migrant style housing with 3-4 generations in the one house w/ a lot of bunk beds, and the grandparents treated like royalty because they own the house and will hand it down
Ironically there are stories of this already happening.
No home loans at all is a bit extreme.
I like that an article talking about multigenerational living has their only example as a single mother living with her parents. That's not only unsurprising, it's smart.
You'd think they'd at least try to find a married couple living with one/both of their parents for that sort of article - so maybe multigenerational living isn't as widespread as they're trying to make out…
Who asserted it is widespread?
If you Google you’ll find other articles about it. I’ve read stories about what you’ve suggested, there was one in the ABC (inb4 “oMg LeFtIeSZS1!1!11”).
Here’s another one: https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2020/01/moving-back-in--the-ris…
Who asserted it is widespread?
Title of scotty's linked article:
Australian housing: How multigenerational living is affecting the property market
For multigenerational to affect the property market, would it not need to be widespread?
From your linked article (emphasis mine):
Research from the UNSW City Futures Research Centre shows one in five Australians live in a multigenerational household. That increases to around one in four Sydneysiders who live with multiple generations of relatives.
One in five is pretty widespread, in my opinion.
Regardless of any opinions on widespread-edness, my comment was specifically about the example family being a single mother living with her parents, which, in my opinion single parents would be a sizable portion of all multigenerational living families, and for me to consider it "widespread" there would need to be couples living with their parents.
But now that I've thought about that some more, we have a what, 1 in 3 divorce rate, so maybe "widespread" multigenerational living is closer than I think…
Would that be such a nightmare? Families sticking together for longer instead of abandoning their community as soon as they turn 18, or the elderly cared for by their flesh and blood instead of being unloaded onto taxpayer aged care?
Sounds like this would solve at least a dozen or so major problems with our society at the moment. It would reduce welfare reliance, probably lower taxes, solve loneliness etc.
It can be your worst nightmare!
The control issues alone within that dynamic would be scary.
This^^
So much is fake demand created by this notion of a right to have your own and demand government help. How many broken families where kids left in limbo coz a woman takes kids and leaves husband and causes these broken families with government handouts. It’s like oprah handing out houses. A house for you, a house for you, a house for you. Families should stay together for longer. Better for the kids and less burden on taxpayers
Consider a domestic violence setting and then let us know if you still think it would be better for the kids that the family stay together
google 'intergenerational trauma'
Uh no thanks…
That happens a lot in Asia, and a lot of children have their dreams crushed because their parents have decided they know what's best for the kid… career wise, hobby wise, and otherwise.
Surely you've seen the jokes/memes/stereotypes about Asian kids doing very well in school. What you don't see is the other side of the coin. Individual preferences and ideals vanish, and you are left with more of a hive mentality than a collection of individuals.
parents have decided they know what's best for the kid…
That's because they do. Don't you think you're a lot smarter now compared to when you were 18-22?
Individual preferences and ideals vanish, and you are left with more of a hive mentality
What anti-traditionalists don't understand is that traditions are our only mechanism to learn from the past. They come from hundreds (maybe thousands) of years of human learning.
The whole culture of moving out of the nest to find your own way rarely works out any better for most people. Some make it big, others are more or less the same, but I'd say the majority just end up isolated from their only bloodline. This is not a happy way to die. And there's certainly nothing preferable about people losing touch with their cultural or ethnic roots. Without it, people just cling to other group systems to fill the void (the media, identity politics, etc).
Without it, people just cling to other group systems to fill the void (the media, identity politics, etc).
This is how the lqbgti’s get you right. It’s all friendly and nice and stuff and then all of a sudden you’ve been turned against everything you’ve grown up to know and love.
@Awoke: It's a cult. LGBT target the isolated and detached members of society and wield them as canon fodder for pushing radical social dogma.
You have one side saying they're proud to be men who have sex with other men, while another says there's no such thing as men to begin with. And if you're a member who happens to think beyond the left-wing persuasion, they couldn't care less what happens to you. The LGBT movement turned a once proud community of people into political enemies.
@SlavOz: It’s a devout following like i said in the other topic about religion. It’s essentially a leftie green agenda to depopulate the planet. That’s one of their goals and their obsession with ltbgiq and abortion policies supports that agenda.
@Awoke: I gave this a positive vote because of the belly laugh it gave me - utterly ridiculous nonsense.
So instead you'd need to pay rent and still slog for 25/30 years to save the money to buy the property cash? And also pray that property prices didn't increase for those 25/30 years while you were saving…