"It is curious how an article pointing out that a certain sector of society has done relatively well, turns into 'the selfish generation'. Being selfish implies that there was something deliberate about what has happened - for the most part there wasn't. If there are villains, they are those who built the economic models - the economists and politicians.
I receive a public sector pension and for most of the time more was being taken in, than was being paid out - in fact we were subsidising general taxation. As early as the mid 70s those who had taken the responsibility for predicting our economic future should have seen that it was a Ponzi scheme and change it to a funded pension. People were complaining about paying too much - that would have been politically and economically right time to introduce a change which would have avoided part of the pensions crisis. In those days people trusted with handling money - especially savings - were held in high regard. Anything to do with pensions was regarded as boring but safe. People bought pensions wanting not be a burden on their children. They were not economic modellers.
This is just one example of where there may have been unease about what was happening and the economic modellers got it wrong. Like any person, you take what is on offer. You may question its viability, but when the experts tell you that it is OK, you go on and take it. The politicians are supposed to tell you how it is. In the past we were told that everything is going to be all right, but a bit too complicated for you to ever understand. It seemed all right so we re-elected them. Now we are told the future is bleak. Politically that is a good message to make - blaming it on Gordon won the election, but blaming it on a declining generation may win future elections.
There is a problem and the government is being over generous to some sections. The balance needs to be changed. The economic model which we were told would work has failed. But ask any of those born between '45 and '60 and they will tell you they were trying to build a future for their children. The fact that it didn't work out may be their fault for failing to understand the limits of the economic model, but there was little intentionality, so to label them as selfish says more about the accusers than about that generation"
"I agree. IMHO the key point with this article (and post 229) is that the small minority in power who practice Poweromics* (e.g. Politicians, Bankers) are able to do so (and successfully line their own pockets & flourish) without being challenged in a world surrounded by Ignoromics**. If you want to challenge Poweromics ... you have to reduce Ignoromics (as they are partners in crime).
IMHO there will be no new 'leaders' emerging whilst there are so few people wanting someone new to 'lead' ... and I'm afraid Ignoromics still prevails at this time hence it hasn't happened yet ... IMHO this won't be the case forever ... but things will unfortunately probably have to get much worse before it does ... unless people can find a way to fast-track the removal of Ignoromics, whilst those in power practicing Poweromics (and preparing for this) throw everything they can at them to stop them.
'For evil to flourish, all it needs is for good men to do nothing' [Edmund Burke]
* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.
** Ignoromics = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment) or not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better (i.e. Type 1 = Ignorance, Type 2 = Apathy).
IMHO the issue is less to age/generation and more to do with type of people we currently have in positions of power (e.g. Government, media, corporations, banks) ... i.e. Egocentric & Ethnocentric instead of more Worldcentric people (for definitions go to http://renegadeeconomist.com/blog/big-questions-hot-handle.html) ... e.g. take a look at a small extract from this link below:
"Introducing tighter regulations for bankers or politicians does not raise their level of maturity, morality or their ethics, it just limits what they can get away with. No, it is the type of people, the Ethnocentrics themselves, that have to go. Worldcentric people by definition and by their nature would not have abused the old regulations, let alone need new ones. Anyone below Worldcentric on the “chart” should not be selected or elected into positions of leadership in politics or big corporations, not just banks. Fewer people would fit the bill and that would limit our choice, and so it should.
The second of the two issues was the failure of commentators to seriously question the capitalist economic system that has proved to be so fragile and unjust. It has brought wealth to half the world while the rest starve; it thrives on excess consumption and the inevitable emissions, and it seriously retards the evolutionary development of individuals and cultures. Bankers and politicians alike strive to prop up the old failing system which they abused, because they know no better.
It did not occur to them that this was a golden opportunity to start to create a viable, sustainable economic system in line with the requirements of emerging Worldcentric human consciousness stage. Putting off the inevitable only makes the next economic crisis bigger and sooner. Worldcentric observers are amazed, distraught by the primitive ethnocentric thinking of our politicians and bankers, but they are up against the power that they still exercise.
However there is also a groundswell of more conscious or ‘worldcentric’ people who will no longer tolerate the old order and they will become ever more vociferous until the ethnocentric majority of politicians are discredited, ousted and replaced. Some commentators will reread if not resurrect Karl Marx, but the way is forward not backwards. A new economic order is essential, one that puts people and planet before profit".