Over the past 30 years or so, the values of the 60's generation have been eroded and, in particular, the influence of the Thatcher years that suggested that everyone can "have it all" has become regarded as normal. Now for those too young to remember, many of a certain generation in the 60's rejected the materialism and narrow minded approach to life that their parents had and instead looked to live a life where less = more. As I said, that was eroded mainly by the evils of Thatcherism where greed is good was instilled upon people as being something to be proud of and as a population, we became similar to rats feeding from corpses. Have we reached a time when people are beginning to realise that more does in fact mean less and that greed may not be good or are todays priced out FTB's essentially the same people as those they despise (BTL's, MEWed out houseowners) and will repeat the mistakes of the Thatcher generation if and when their opportunity arises.

Not a Thatcher-fan, I have to say but I understood the central thrust of her dogma was self-reliance, not "greed is good". That was just an aberration, her policy in extremis.
Although your central point - return of the 1960's - has some merit. Environmentalism, charity work etc..etc..

(Remember though, that the rise of the Nazis was preceeded by a big environmental movement in Germany).

Liberalism is the new Facism.

S'true.

INFLATION PSYCHOLOGY is coming back too
=======

Why the real rate of inflation is twice what the official figures tell us
Rises in bills that have to be paid come what may hurt more than rises in luxury items
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 13 June 2006

Official figures later this morning are expected to reveal that inflation rose to 2.1 per cent from 2.0 per cent last month. While this will create huge excitement among City traders betting on the next move in interest rates, it will leave millions of ordinary people scratching their heads in bewilderment. Perhaps with good reason.

...an index devised by The Independent, and published today, appears to back that notion. The index strips out items that are not essential to a basic standard of living. Thus we have taken out leisure goods and services, household services, personal goods, buying a car, tobacco and alcohol. Our index is dominated by the cost of running a home, paying for the public utilities, keeping a car on the road and basic items such as clothing, furniture and chemists goods. It is open to criticism - why include the cost of running a car but not buying it? - but it attempts to isolate areas of inflation that irk people.

While the official inflation rate the Bank of England uses to set interest rates has been below 2 per cent for 20 out of the past 28 months, our index has been above 4 per cent for 17 of those months, and higher than 5 per cent for five.

In other words non-discretionary inflation is running at about twice the targeted one - and in October 2004 showed an annual rise of 5.3 per cent, more than four times the official measure of 1.2 per cent.

...MORE: http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?i...47886&from=4367

why not somewhere inbetween? I want to have what I want, and the opportunities to get it. But my wants are few. I dont want to have nothing, but I feel no need to 'have it all'

House - yes, car - no, Champagne - no, pack of Fosters - yes, holidays - no, stack of CDs - yes. I think the trick is to understand what you really want and not to want what the media simply tells us all we should have.

I'll use holidays as an example, my partner and I actually always have crap holidays, they are stressful, expensive, things go wrong, we tend to keep to ourselves and we're not adventurous, having recognised this I said a while ago, lets not bother. However the media driven missus is still very much 'we have to go on an exotic holiday' becuase thats what we're supposed to do, thats what the TV ads say - you arent really living a full life if you dont go splashing your cash on expensive holidays... is that Thatcher talking? Im sure travel companies, travel shows, celeb travel exploits would all be rammed down our throat whatever system of government we'd had in the past....

Answer -- lose the TV!

I haven't had one for about 5 years...

frugalista

I'm taking it to the max at the moment - and it's driving my bank wild that I have only two monthly payments (mortgage, council tax) from my account - yes there is further to go.

It might be at the heart of the HPC dilemma. Read:

The Value of Voluntary Simplicity

Walden Pond

Ditch Monkey

I don't know whether I am misunderstanding you here, when you talk of a 'certain generation in the 60's': Did you perhaps mean those who were rising to adulthood during those years? I always class myself as a child of the sixties due to my immersion in the pop culture of that time. I was actually born much earlier.

You mention this certain generation rejecting their parents narrow,minded and materialistic approach. Well I embraced my parent's approach as they were warm-hearted and people-centred, both working in service industries and committed to charity work. I absorbed - not rejected - their values. so I feel you over-generalise about that generation - if they are the people you describe.

Very interesting thread.

How come in today's world - the things that you can't do without seem to be getting more expensive (Ctax, heating, electricity) and the things that you can't afford are getting cheaper (travel, electronics)

If you look at the inflation figures, some things are getting much cheaper (e.g. TVs) while others are getting more expensive (debt, energy etc...).

The debt thing worries me - since so many people are going into University and expecting a career with prospects.
The cost of education is high and in the event of a rececssion there may be many people who'll be much worse off for having studied.
Luckily I don't have any money worries as I have a relatively secure job, great prospects and an ample salary.
However a lot of my cohorts are the 48" LCD TV owning - credit card carrying - gimme gimme gimme generation.
They find ways of spending thier money on all the novelties of the day - long foreign holidays, city breaks, fast cars, flashy watches and shiny shoes.

It might sound like I am complaining or jealous - but I think that it takes a certain degree of self-control to ignore urges of consumerism.

My belief is that Postponement of Pleasure can afford me a well off future - while those who spend now pay later.

Until the government of the day means-test your self-control into oblivion...

I'm not planning on either living off the state pension or living in the UK in the long-term.
And I can't really see how means-testing is going to affect me or anyone else in my position.

What the government can afford (e.g. NHS, pensions, even bus passes for the elderly) and what people are prepared to pay will drive people out of the UK.
That's what I expect anyway - and I don't really want to be around for it

Better hope that long-term nursing care is cheaper than here wherever you plan to move.

Or that the health service isn't as good so you won't need to worry about that...

I'll bear that in mind.

I did that last year. All I have is a good hifi and the internet.

It was hard at the start as I didnt have anything to pacify my mind when I was bored, but with time you find things to do and use your brain. Not just vegitate infront of the gogglebox.

I think that if my CRT TV broke tomorow I would not bother gettting a stunning new 52" flat-screen TV.
First of all I don't generally watch TV, and the TV licence is quite substantial coming in at about £10/month.

Maybe then I would be immune from all these TV shows telling me about how to renovate a terraced house and double my money in a fortnight - or how to buy abroad.

Yes, I thought that. but those who spend now get subsidised later, and those who save now will be asked to pay for what others get for free.