View Full Version : Another intriguing article
weezer 316
14-Jul-11, 12:07
Another intriguing article, although the comments at the bottom are a bit mad
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014524/Britain-debt-Taxes-rise-12p-suffering-50-years.html
I've said it before, I'm sure I'll say it again.
It should be made illegal for any UK government to set a budget above its income unless in time of war or emergency.
Ouch that is gloomy.
So why to labour voters and tax payers still want to pay for the education of people that will earn more than them and vote Tory?
They needn't worry. They will still be paying for the people that insist on remaining poor even after they get their degree.
Sorry I thought you were inviting mad comments.
weezer 316
14-Jul-11, 12:50
Ouch that is gloomy.
So why to labour voters and tax payers still want to pay for the education of people that will earn more than them and vote Tory?
They needn't worry. They will still be paying for the people that insist on remaining poor even after they get their degree.
Sorry I thought you were inviting mad comments.
That first line is a very good point!
It makes me sick. You cant spend more that you earn. Like theone said, it should be practically impossible to do so.
we are gonna be cleaning up for decades. And its the man in the street thats at fault.
That first line is a very good point!
It makes me sick. You cant spend more that you earn. Like theone said, it should be practically impossible to do so.
we are gonna be cleaning up for decades. And its the man in the street thats at fault.
Decades? It would be decades if we had a Conservative gov. for the next 50 years. The likelyhood is we won't. So , on past form, it will never end
weezer 316
14-Jul-11, 13:42
Decades? It would be decades if we had a Conservative gov. for the next 50 years. The likelyhood is we won't. So , on past form, it will never end
It will end. Just not well. We will be bankrupt and all the people that moaned about cuts will realize what cuts are when the govt has no money to spend at all.
Not that they care mind. They can just blame the rich and make themselves feel better
Shabbychic
15-Jul-11, 11:51
I feel a song coming on.....take it away Dan & Dan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI). :D:D
John Little
15-Jul-11, 13:04
I have not spent more than I earned. Nor has anyone I know - as far as I am aware.
This article is not about the failure of us as ordinary people - it's about the failure of the nation state and the system of international finance.
The function of a state is not the creation of wealth. It exists for the welfare and well-being of its people. If it cannot do that then it has failed.
This is a right wing think tank telling us that our old ages and those of our children are to be mired in misery, unemployment and a dropping standard of living.
On a school report I'd have to put 'could do better'.
Why should the good people of this country put up with 15% of the population merrily creaming off wealth out of all proportion to effort, telling us they are worth it and that it is the best system to run the country because 'trickle down' is healthy?
What sort of con job is that?
So the government and the banks play with our money, spend what they cannot afford - in our name- then blame us.
Fine.
Then roll on the revolution, break up the UK and let's start again with decent people in charge.
Because if this article is accurate then it's unacceptable, the system has failed and we need a New Deal.
Cicero was right;
Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex
I have not spent more than I earned. Nor has anyone I know - as far as I am aware.
This article is not about the failure of us as ordinary people - it's about the failure of the nation state and the system of international finance.
The function of a state is not the creation of wealth. It exists for the welfare and well-being of its people. If it cannot do that then it has failed.
This is a right wing think tank telling us that our old ages and those of our children are to be mired in misery, unemployment and a dropping standard of living.
On a school report I'd have to put 'could do better'.
Why should the good people of this country put up with 15% of the population merrily creaming off wealth out of all proportion to effort, telling us they are worth it and that it is the best system to run the country because 'trickle down' is healthy?
What sort of con job is that?
So the government and the banks play with our money, spend what they cannot afford - in our name- then blame us.
Fine.
Then roll on the revolution, break up the UK and let's start again with decent people in charge.
Because if this article is accurate then it's unacceptable, the system has failed and we need a New Deal.
Cicero was right;
Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex
And that is assuming the playing field remains reasonably level. Add in; global warming, lack of fuel, population explosion, terrorism, war, famine, alien invasion and anything else that will happen over the next 50 years and the membership of the Shite Creek Paddleless Canoeing Club are going to swell. :eek:
BTW John, unless your are going to reinvent money, we can't start again 'cos there aint none! And you canny do that without getting the rest of the world to do the same. And as we can't even agree to stop torchering and killing each other......
John Little
15-Jul-11, 16:22
Oh there's plenty of money Duke. No shortage at all;
1 % point 2 Wealth to qualify 3 Percentage of total wealth owned by people at or above this level.
Top 1%
£688,228
21% of total UK wealth
2%
£460,179
28% of total UK wealth
5%
£270,164
40% of total UK wealth
10%
£176,221
53% of total UK wealth
25%
£76,098
72% of total UK wealth
50%
£35,807
93% of total UK wealth
Oh there's plenty of money Duke. No shortage at all;
1 % point 2 Wealth to qualify 3 Percentage of total wealth owned by people at or above this level.
Top 1%
£688,228
21% of total UK wealth
2%
£460,179
28% of total UK wealth
5%
£270,164
40% of total UK wealth
10%
£176,221
53% of total UK wealth
25%
£76,098
72% of total UK wealth
50%
£35,807
93% of total UK wealth
What are you suggesting John? Tell you what, don't sell that lovely house that you've worked hard all your life to pay for. Give it to the state. I'm sure they would be only too happy to give it to some (make up your own stereotype) who's never done a days work yadda yadda yadda :lol:
John Little
16-Jul-11, 07:50
Oh sure - all those rich bankers worked really hard for their cash didn't they?
What has always puzzled the heck out of me all my life is the readiness of people who have little to defend the right of those who are successful at snuffling more out of the trough than they can. So in the name of 'capitalism' it's ok to be a Fred the Shred or walk off with a multi-million pound 'bonus' because private property is sacrosanct.
So to defend your moiety you also defend the right of others to be fat cats.
While 50% of the population own 93% of the national wealth and their media churns out endlessly the message that the country is in trouble because the other 50% have been over spending.
And tax them to the gills to protect their wealth.
Is that a joke or what?
I worked for what I have - I worked all my working life, paid my taxes and paid my debts.
But no matter how hard or how long I worked, no-one ever offered me a 'bonus' on top of my pay.
Trickle down is central to Conservatism.
But it does not work, is not working and never will work.
If the future set out in the OP article is the best Conservatism has to offer our future then the Tories should be swept into the dustbin of History. Britain needs better than that.
And if this really is such a national emergency then our first concern should not be protecting the status quo but using the national wealth to save the nation.
Oh sure - all those rich bankers worked really hard for their cash didn't they?
What has always puzzled the heck out of me all my life is the readiness of people who have little to defend the right of those who are successful at snuffling more out of the trough than they can. So in the name of 'capitalism' it's ok to be a Fred the Shred or walk off with a multi-million pound 'bonus' because private property is sacrosanct.
So to defend your moiety you also defend the right of others to be fat cats.
While 50% of the population own 93% of the national wealth and their media churns out endlessly the message that the country is in trouble because the other 50% have been over spending.
And tax them to the gills to protect their wealth.
Is that a joke or what?
I worked for what I have - I worked all my working life, paid my taxes and paid my debts.
But no matter how hard or how long I worked, no-one ever offered me a 'bonus' on top of my pay.
Trickle down is central to Conservatism.
But it does not work, is not working and never will work.
If the future set out in the OP article is the best Conservatism has to offer our future then the Tories should be swept into the dustbin of History. Britain needs better than that.
And if this really is such a national emergency then our first concern should not be protecting the status quo but using the national wealth to save the nation.
John, everyone who has ever worked will tell you how hard and they deserve more. I've never been a Banker (and that term covers I presume, everyone who works in a bank?).
People do not give out 7 figure salaries without good reason. Do you think these people leave school at 15 and are ushered into the job, given a mobile phone, a laptop and a BMW?
The whole grounding of our society has shifted significantly. You used to have to have been born at the top, now you can work your way there. If you want to, and have the drive and ambition and can learn the skills and yes if you get a bit of luck and meet and impress the right people, but it is not a closed shop.
Or....you can shortcut the whole tedious process and win the Euromillions.:Razz
Let me give you my experience because I've been in business a long time. I know a lot of some would say wealthy people. They have good looking lifestyles. May drive nice cars live in nice houses, employ lots of people, may have a couple of holidays a year.
They don't actually get that much time to enjoy it though. They all work weekends and never go home at 5 o'clock. They are responsible for not just their own carreers, wealth and welfare, but many other people's too.
And if for any reason, they fail in their endeavours, it is a long plummet back to the bottom.
John Little
16-Jul-11, 09:02
I'm going out and don't have time for a long reply- just this Duke-
"They don't actually get that much time to enjoy it though. They all work weekends and never go home at 5 o'clock. They are responsible for not just their own carreers, wealth and welfare, but many other people's too."
Policemen. Firemen. Nurses. Teachers. Doctors. Cleaners. etc etc etc.
And how many of the Cabinet went to top notch public schools?
So there really is no such thing as wealth and privilege and the old school tie eh?
Our society has its priorities in a complete twist. It pays footballers hundreds of thousands a week and care workers a pittance.
You really think the boss of a corporation works harder than you?
Really?
You really think the boss of a corporation works harder than you?
Really?
Policemen. Firemen. Nurses. Teachers. Doctors. Cleaners. etc etc etc.
[/QUOTE]
" If you want to". If you take any of the above careers you ain't going to the top, except;
Chief Constable, Commander, Head of Nurses Union, Head of a large School, Head of Surgery, JaniKing Franchisee.
[/QUOTE]
So there really is no such thing as wealth and privilege and the old school tie eh?
[/QUOTE]
Of course there is, but the point is no one gives an idiot a 7 figure salary regardless of what school they went to.
[QUOTE=John Little;869849]Our society has its priorities in a complete twist. It pays footballers hundreds of thousands a week and care workers a pittance.
Successful entertainers have always earned mega money, and (almost) never been old school tie wallers.
One of my mothers Carers owns two boats.:confused
You really think the boss of a corporation works harder than you?
Really?
Yes, I'm afraid so.
John Little
16-Jul-11, 15:31
" If you want to". If you take any of the above careers you ain't going to the top,..."
What exactly is 'the top'? You mean to a position where you gain enough authority to embezzle public money and buy duck islands, or where you get to embezzle your customers' money if they bank with you? Or your shareholders' money in bonuses or because you can with impunity?
Who is more valuable to society - one of the caring professions eg a nurse, or some barrow boy with a phone buying and selling imaginary money on the stock exchange?
"Of course there is, but the point is no one gives an idiot a 7 figure salary regardless of what school they went to."
Yes they do. I can think of Fred the shred and Rebekah Brooks right now and more if I thought about it.
The remuneration set for entertainers and footballers at higher levels is obscene. I'm not sure who should be more ashamed - those who pay it or those who take it.
And this is what we set our younger generations to admire.
And no - the boss of a corporation does not work any harder than you do. He does not put in more hours than you do. He or she is there to take decisions and they often get them wrong- the BP boss being a case in point.
Enough of this - it ain't the point.
The point is this.
I have never been a Socialist and have never voted Labour all my life - or Tory for that matter.
But British politics is polarising into them and us. And if the vision of the future conjured up in the OP's original article is all that the Tories have to offer, and if the Lib Dems are a busted flush, then they drive me to where there is no alternative but to vote Labour.
Because frankly what is on offer is a choice between safeguarding the position of the haves and dooming the 50% who own 7% of the wealth to never ending misery, and voting for some sort of Social Democracy which cares more about people than cash.
If that's the choice that the Tories have to offer then next time round I vote Labour for the first time in my life.
" If you want to". If you take any of the above careers you ain't going to the top,..."
What exactly is 'the top'? You mean to a position where you gain enough authority to embezzle public money and buy duck islands, or where you get to embezzle your customers' money if they bank with you? Or your shareholders' money in bonuses or because you can with impunity?
Who is more valuable to society - one of the caring professions eg a nurse, or some barrow boy with a phone buying and selling imaginary money on the stock exchange?
"Of course there is, but the point is no one gives an idiot a 7 figure salary regardless of what school they went to."
Yes they do. I can think of Fred the shred and Rebekah Brooks right now and more if I thought about it.
The remuneration set for entertainers and footballers at higher levels is obscene. I'm not sure who should be more ashamed - those who pay it or those who take it.
And this is what we set our younger generations to admire.
And no - the boss of a corporation does not work any harder than you do. He does not put in more hours than you do. He or she is there to take decisions and they often get them wrong- the BP boss being a case in point.
Enough of this - it ain't the point.
The point is this.
I have never been a Socialist and have never voted Labour all my life - or Tory for that matter.
But British politics is polarising into them and us. And if the vision of the future conjured up in the OP's original article is all that the Tories have to offer, and if the Lib Dems are a busted flush, then they drive me to where there is no alternative but to vote Labour.
Because frankly what is on offer is a choice between safeguarding the position of the haves and dooming the 50% who own 7% of the wealth to never ending misery, and voting for some sort of Social Democracy which cares more about people than cash.
If that's the choice that the Tories have to offer then next time round I vote Labour for the first time in my life.
Up to you, but exactly how did all the socialist politicians become millionaires? Same difference if you ask me.
John Little
16-Jul-11, 17:49
That is not an answer.
The quality of life in a democracy is decided in the distribution of its wealth. If it is uneven then gap between those at the top of the pecking order and those at the bottom becomes too high.
In Conservatism this is supposed to be evened out through trickle-down. Only it is not happening.
Pure Socialism destroys incentives. And breeds hypocrites.
The trick in a Social Democracy is to find the balance.
As Lloyd George said in 1906 - there is plenty of wealth in this country. The problem is its distribution.
We do not need a wholesale Socialist revolutionary to tell us that and he certainly was not. Churchill thought and said the same thing at that time.
We need mechanisms to curb abuse; to make our publicly owned banks work for us, for public spending on such things as illegal wars to be more accountable; to stop giving our money away; to tell our bankers to take their PAY or leave it if they want 'bonuses' and for outrageous salaries to be subject to account by the shareholders of those who pay them.
I repeat - that article offers nothing that I or any sane person wishes to see for the future.
well I did leak that VAT could possibly rise to 50%
Then again- compulsary euthanasia for everyone over 65 would negate the need for pensions- and I've heard that one at brother in law's dinner table too- along with sterilisation of 'undesirables' - similar to what was done in Sweden and in the USA in the 1930's.
Think tanks are the organisations where the current cabinet all served their apprenticeships- expect much much worse to come
That is not an answer.
The quality of life in a democracy is decided in the distribution of its wealth. If it is uneven then gap between those at the top of the pecking order and those at the bottom becomes too high.
In Conservatism this is supposed to be evened out through trickle-down. Only it is not happening.
Pure Socialism destroys incentives. And breeds hypocrites.
The trick in a Social Democracy is to find the balance.
As Lloyd George said in 1906 - there is plenty of wealth in this country. The problem is its distribution.
We do not need a wholesale Socialist revolutionary to tell us that and he certainly was not. Churchill thought and said the same thing at that time.
We need mechanisms to curb abuse; to make our publicly owned banks work for us, for public spending on such things as illegal wars to be more accountable; to stop giving our money away; to tell our bankers to take their PAY or leave it if they want 'bonuses' and for outrageous salaries to be subject to account by the shareholders of those who pay them.
I repeat - that article offers nothing that I or any sane person wishes to see for the future.
OK Great idea, But the situation is what it is. Re-reading the article, the OBR believe the situation to be dire. I can't see any major change in the way wealth is managed happening. The only way you can redistribute wealth is to have rich people earn less. You can't make poor people earn more. And where is the cut off, the even point? Who decides?
BTW 0.5% interest is a wealth redistributer and a big one. Borrowers pay a lot less and investers return is next to nothing. I haven't seen society change for the better as a result. Have you?
When you look at the situation in the Horn of Africa (again) It makes me wonder why we even bother talking about this stuff.
Then again- compulsary euthanasia for everyone over 65 would negate the need for pensions
Surely that wouldn't apply to everyone. There must be an income threshhold of some sort? :lol:
along with sterilisation of 'undesirables' - similar to what was done in Sweden and in the USA in the 1930's.
That'll be anyone who votes Tory then Bagpuss?????
C3.......[disgust][disgust];)
John Little
16-Jul-11, 21:09
OK Great idea, But the situation is what it is. Re-reading the article, the OBR believe the situation to be dire.
A Conservative think tank forseeing the future it only wishes to see.
I can't see any major change in the way wealth is managed happening. The only way you can redistribute wealth is to have rich people earn less.
Not so - you can tax higher earners and stop tax write-offs for large companies
You can't make poor people earn more.
Yes you can - you increase the national minimum wage.
BTW 0.5% interest is a wealth redistributer and a big one. Borrowers pay a lot less and investers return is next to nothing. I haven't seen society change for the better as a result. Have you?
Again not so - the housing market is stock still because folk can't get mortgages. Who's doing that? Why can't they borrow the money? Hundreds of thousands are trying.
I repeat. The article offers nothing that anyone wants to see except those with a vested interest in having it so.
That does not include me.
Or indeed you - unless you are far richer than I guess....
When you look at the situation in the Horn of Africa (again) It makes me wonder why we even bother talking about this stuff.
But we are not looking at the Horn of Africa.
We are looking at a possible future for this nation.
One which could and should be avoided.
I should thank you - I had been thinking of not voting next time but you have focused me wonderfully.
.The only way you can redistribute wealth is to have rich people earn less. You can't make poor people earn more. And where is the cut off, the even point? Who decides?.
There lies the intriguing dilema. Why dont poor people want to be rich?
Good discussion chaps. Gives me faith in mankind. Start your own party John. I like some of the things you say about the inequalities of our system. I would vote for you but ducatis asking good questions. Human nature being what it is and all that.
John Little
16-Jul-11, 22:56
Right now I'm watching Michel Moore's film on Capitalism.
Airline pilots earning $19,000 a year having to take food stamps and second jobs as waitresses in order to make enough to live on. And planes crashing because of tired pilots. That's £11,700 a year flying airliners...
Okay - so it's about the job you choose to do with your life. So let's have a society where we all shove our snouts in the trough.
And to those who do the caring stuff - well let's tell them they made the wrong choice.
Nurses, Firemen, teachers, carers, social workers, police. Mugs the lot of you.
Should have been bankers.
Society in the mould of Alan Sugar.
Stop the planet - I want to get off.
weezer 316
16-Jul-11, 23:08
Alot of points here since the last time i looked.....
Why does it always come abck to the bankers? You mus have mentioned them about 6 times. they aint the reason we haev run a deficit for god knows how many years are they?
Secondly, i agree entirely pure capilalism is madness, as is communism. You do need a balance. You and i need to pay mroe tax thoguh, like denmark, if you want that. not the bankers, you and I.
Thirdly, wealth distrobution is important, but you cannot have a marketplace and then complain that footballer are paid x amount and nurses are paid y. You know fine well the market puts a shirt on your back, food on your table and a Pc in your house to rant to the world about, and it also deceides wages. Could you suggest a viable alernative?
John Little
16-Jul-11, 23:09
I suggest you watch More4 right now...
John Little
16-Jul-11, 23:15
Weezer - I think the answer is regulated and responsible capitalism, fairer taxes, fairer wages and legislation that levels the playing field.
Michael Moore's film is all about this and he's putting forward alternatives - commercial break right now but please do have a look if you read this.
Weezer - I think the answer is regulated and responsible capitalism, fairer taxes, fairer wages and legislation that levels the playing field.
Michael Moore's film is all about this and he's putting forward alternatives - commercial break right now but please do have a look if you read this.
Yeah! but he is a raging lefty :Razz
Sorry forgot the link http://www.mooreexposed.com/
Prior to 1979, if you made a lot of money,you paid a lot- and I mean a lot- of income tax. Result? The biggeer earners opted to take their money abroad- think Mick Jagger etc?
Thatcher and monetarism changed all that- yes they squashed the more vocal unions-think back to the miners' strike, but they also deregulated the city and by doing so let the Del Boy's aka the barrow boys in. Some of those same barrow boys did serious damage to someof the oldest financial institutions- Nick leeson at Barings (3 centuries of business flushed down the toilet in an instant), and the ruin of the Names at Lloyds- given bad advice by the risk taking syndicates. Big tax cuts held the big profits in this country- and a fiscal climate that suited the hedge fund gamblers.
If we were still taxed at 1978 rates we'd be in line with the likes of the scandinavian countries (some of which kept clear of the European Union for that reason)- and we might be a bit better off.
Yup- the bankers have to take their share of the blame- but keep in mind we can try to cut deficits as much as we like- but if the USA drags us into another of their wars, we have to foot the bill for that. Between the Barrow boys and George W Bush, we have one heck of a big bill to pay.
Prior to 1979, if you made a lot of money,you paid a lot- and I mean a lot- of income tax. Result? The biggeer earners opted to take their money abroad- think Mick Jagger etc?
Thatcher and monetarism changed all that- yes they squashed the more vocal unions-think back to the miners' strike, but they also deregulated the city and by doing so let the Del Boy's aka the barrow boys in. Some of those same barrow boys did serious damage to someof the oldest financial institutions- Nick leeson at Barings (3 centuries of business flushed down the toilet in an instant), and the ruin of the Names at Lloyds- given bad advice by the risk taking syndicates. Big tax cuts held the big profits in this country- and a fiscal climate that suited the hedge fund gamblers.
If we were still taxed at 1978 rates we'd be in line with the likes of the scandinavian countries (some of which kept clear of the European Union for that reason)- and we might be a bit better off.
Yup- the bankers have to take their share of the blame- but keep in mind we can try to cut deficits as much as we like- but if the USA drags us into another of their wars, we have to foot the bill for that. Between the Barrow boys and George W Bush, we have one heck of a big bill to pay.
So what are they? Barrow boys or old school ties? I'm confused.:confused
Prior to 1979 to get a job in the City you needed to be a WASP male from a privileged background. Public school applicants were looked on favourably, as were graduates of Oxbridge. However in 79-80 they deregulated, and computer/phone trading became the norm. They also could nolonger operate a closed shop , so women were admitted, and operations opened up to admit people who had 'talent' at making money fast. ie gamblers. Someof them didn't come from the 'old schools'- but because they were prepared to work ridiculous hours, and they got results, it was welcomed- until the mistakes began.
I've got a good friend who was at school in Caithness with me. He retired at 40. Or rather he'd made his pile and stashed most of it offshore in the Cayman islands. He got his break in the City having been headhunted fromanother line of work (a bookies). he still gambles- but it has to pay for the cocaine habit he pickedup wheh he was working 20 hour days.
The old school brigade look down their noses at people like him- they call them plebs, oicks and barrow boys (believe me I hear thoseterms being bandied about at brother in law's dinner table frequently). But they tolerated them because Thatchers (and later Blair's ) Britain rewarded initiative. Need I say more?
Some of the bets didn't pay off- but others did. And in the USA the situation - the sub primemortgages was even worse
John Little
17-Jul-11, 09:55
Yeah! but he is a raging lefty :Razz
Sorry forgot the link http://www.mooreexposed.com/
Raging lefty. What a soundbite.
So everyone who's fed up with VAT rises, fuel prices, unavailability of mortgages, shortage of investment capital, banker bonuses, energy companies making record profits, unemployment, cuts in services, cuts in social payments to the needy, MPs embezzling expenses, right wing newspapers spying and phone-tapping, kettling and beating up of protesters etc is a 'raging lefty'.
Well that's sorted that then.
If I were in Scotland I'd be a SNP voter- for all the above reasons.
Are they raging leftys too?
As to Michael Moore - disregard the attacks on the man- that's predictable. But tell me this - if what he says is so off, then why on earth has he not had his derriere sued off in every court in the US?
John Little
17-Jul-11, 10:22
Alot of points here since the last time i looked.....
Why does it always come abck to the bankers? You mus have mentioned them about 6 times. they aint the reason we haev run a deficit for god knows how many years are they?
Secondly, i agree entirely pure capilalism is madness, as is communism. You do need a balance. You and i need to pay mroe tax thoguh, like denmark, if you want that. not the bankers, you and I.
Thirdly, wealth distrobution is important, but you cannot have a marketplace and then complain that footballer are paid x amount and nurses are paid y. You know fine well the market puts a shirt on your back, food on your table and a Pc in your house to rant to the world about, and it also deceides wages. Could you suggest a viable alernative?
Some good points you make. Yes - we've run a deficit for years - ever since the national debt was first consolidated which was 1720 I think. Nothing wrong with that - a government borrows against its expected income in order to fund what it needs to do. But it comes back to the bankers this time because they brought this about. Michael Moore's film staggered me when he said that Goldman Sachs set aside $6 billion to pay 'bonuses' and that's just one company. Don't you see any obscenity in that? That money comes from somewhere- where?
We agree. Balanced Capitalism is the answer but Capitalism needs a fundamental look at itself. Funnily enough it was Ted Heath who coined the phrase about the unacceptable face of capitalism- and he's right. But what is the purpose of capitalism> Is its prime purpose to enrich the individual or the society it thrives in. Capitalism does not thrive on its own. It needs a skilled workforce, infrastructure, education and services. Individuals may use those to get rich but they did not pay to put those things in place - we did. So Capitalists may get rich - but they owe a debt; to deny that debt is selfishness and we should not defend it.
Mussolini saw that in Italy and sought to address it through the notion of the 'corporate state' where business, workers and government were put into partnership for the good of the state as a whole. That built on a Liberal idea in Britain where industrial disputes could be solved through discussion in 'trades boards' which the Liberals brought in during 1911. Lloyd George was forced to abolish them in 1921 by the Tories in his coalition cabinet...
So yes - some sort of balanced capitalism is the answer. Much more controlled and regulated than at present.
Your third point. Yes You need a market and trading to generate cash and make society run. And it's ok to make money. You ask for an alternative.
Firstly - enforce the national minimum wage across the the board. It should be as shameful as farting in church for people to pay their employees under the minimum just because they can.
Did you ever see Henry Fonda picking peaches in the Grapes of Wrath film? Where they kept dropping the price per box because there were desperate workers who would work for less? Even though they were not paid enough to live on?
Secondly, instead of turning the vast media propaganda machine into blaming us ordinary people for the recession, what about using it to change social attitudes? It used to be ok to do lots of things that are no longer widely acceptable. To smoke, to hate gay people, to be racist. How about an education/ propaganda message where it remains ok to make money but to be moderate; where greed once more becomes a dirty word. Instead of elevating avarice and grasping ambition and making heroes of the like of Trump or Sugar, why not save our adulation for those who spend and give back?
We can start with a Welshman living in Glasgow who set the example to the world. Capitalism with a conscience can work;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen
OK, Crimminal activity is illegal and good luck stopping it. You want to limit what certain people can earn. Who and how much?
You don't like bonuses. Lots of people earn bonuses. Do you want to get rid of all of them or just the people's you think earn too much?
What about commission and all the other incentive payments.
One of the reasons I vote conservative is because I don't want anyone trying to limit what I can earn, most of my working life has been based on no or low salary and commission. Please don't hate me.
I think what we need to focus on is the fact that the deficit reduction is failing to hit the sector responsible for it in the first place. Instead the taxation that is rising is not simply income tax- hikes in petrol and VAT hit everyone- including those not eligible for income tax.
A further worrying factor is failure to pin down rising prices. Ducati- by any chance is it your wife who has to do the supermarket shop? If so- next week, take what you think a week's shopping should cost out in cash (leave your bank cards at home) and see how much change you can bring home with you.
Ducati- by any chance is it your wife who has to do the supermarket shop?
No, we are not Victorians. :lol:
in which case- as an emancipated male- get out the bank statements and compare your shopping costs a year ago with what you're paying now
Prior to 1979, if you made a lot of money,you paid a lot- and I mean a lot- of income tax. Result? The biggeer earners opted to take their money abroad- think Mick Jagger etc?
I beg to differ on that to a certain extent, yes they enjoyed a tax haven exile status in France and got rich at the British rocker's expense but I seem to remember that they eventually all voluntarily gave it all up to enjoy British life again and the taxes which came with it until 1979 when...
Maggie's policies just made it easier to live a tax exile and claim privilidges according to British citizenship.
weezer 316
18-Jul-11, 16:13
Weezer - I think the answer is regulated and responsible capitalism, fairer taxes, fairer wages and legislation that levels the playing field.
Michael Moore's film is all about this and he's putting forward alternatives - commercial break right now but please do have a look if you read this.
I missed it. I must say I have liked his other stuff, sicko in particular. Ill see about getting my hands on it.
As for your points, how would you decide whats fair? I think the market place is, by and large, a very good mechanism to decide who is worth what. The alternative is that you have a panel that's open to political, cultural and personal bias far more then a market place is. That system is far more unfair than the one at present.
Also, what is fairer taxes? Th top 1% pay nearly 25% of the taxes in this country remember.
I personally feel we either, as a nation agree, raise the tax rates to something akin to denmark (watch the wee men squeel about that) or leave it as it is at the moment. The problem is the first option will never ever ever get voted in.
So yeah, to return to the original point, the problem is the common man, not the bankers. We consume too much and dont pay enough.
John Little
18-Jul-11, 17:47
I think that is probably the attitude that you are meant to have.
I posted a link on the Capitalism thread which bears thinking about. Among the things it says is this;
"The ultimate trump card for the defenders of neoliberalism, however, is that there is no alternative. Communist societies, social democracies, and even modest social welfare states like the United States have all failed, the neoliberals proclaim, and their citizens have accepted neoliberalism as the only feasible course. It may well be imperfect, but it is the only economic system possible."
http://whosemedia.com/authors/mcchesney_robert_w/noam_chomsky_and_the_strugg.html
I think the problem is not the market, but the free untrammelled market. A deregulated market merely allows the larger players to strangle small business and produce virtual monopolies.
The market thus becomes a place for Social Darwinism where the fit and big survive and small goes to the wall.
It's a form of market that benefits the few and it's not the way it's meant to be.
Please have a look at the article - which is the intro to one of Chomsky's books which I have here. I think he's right.
The market we have now is the enemy of Democracy because it marginalises people, discourages small enterprise and channels wealth into the hands of the few.
As to what we do - well breaking up virtual monopolies, like banks into smaller banks, would be a start.
Large tax on large corporations and smaller taxes on smaller companies?
I think McChesney's got a point.
weezer 316
19-Jul-11, 12:45
I think that is probably the attitude that you are meant to have.
I posted a link on the Capitalism thread which bears thinking about. Among the things it says is this;
"The ultimate trump card for the defenders of neoliberalism, however, is that there is no alternative. Communist societies, social democracies, and even modest social welfare states like the United States have all failed, the neoliberals proclaim, and their citizens have accepted neoliberalism as the only feasible course. It may well be imperfect, but it is the only economic system possible."
http://whosemedia.com/authors/mcchesney_robert_w/noam_chomsky_and_the_strugg.html
I think the problem is not the market, but the free untrammelled market. A deregulated market merely allows the larger players to strangle small business and produce virtual monopolies.
The market thus becomes a place for Social Darwinism where the fit and big survive and small goes to the wall.
It's a form of market that benefits the few and it's not the way it's meant to be.
Please have a look at the article - which is the intro to one of Chomsky's books which I have here. I think he's right.
The market we have now is the enemy of Democracy because it marginalises people, discourages small enterprise and channels wealth into the hands of the few.
As to what we do - well breaking up virtual monopolies, like banks into smaller banks, would be a start.
Large tax on large corporations and smaller taxes on smaller companies?
I think McChesney's got a point.
Right well I agree with some of your sentiments but for the life of me i cant understand why your not tying the globalised world we live in with the global conglomerates that shoot up from it. The pc your sitting it probably has parts from a dozen countries in it, with it being built in say Taiwan. To get that onto your desk you need an organization(s) capable of moving lots of stuff huge distances and accurately tracking it accross the globe. With the best will in the world AJG aint gonna do it! You benefit in a very real way in that you can access good and services that might otherwise be totally unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Its not just the shareholders of UPS or what have you.
Also, I woudlnt draw the line that big companies = big monopolies. Supermarkets are th best example I can give you where the competition is utterly cut throat and prices are as low as they can go really. Without such bulk buying power and logistical prowess you would be back in the situation I mention in the last paragraph.
John Little
19-Jul-11, 12:55
I do not deny the globalisation, but I think there are degrees of it and we do not have a balance. We need balance because without it, profit comes before people, Business before Democracy and community is sacrificed to consumerism. I will probably be able to give you a better reply when I've read this book-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Profits-Over-People-Neoliberalism-Global/dp/1888363827/ref=sr_1_11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311080149&sr=1-11
It's making me think a lot - and I blame you for starting me off on this.....:)
weezer 316
19-Jul-11, 13:47
Haha! Dont blame me, blame Murdoch!!
No in all honesty I, and people my age really, dont share the mistrust of large corporations that you speak off. At the end of the day they are really manifestations of what people want, and as a result they are just as easily ripped down again if no one wants them any longer.
John Little
19-Jul-11, 14:05
Hm - Chomsky would argue that there is a difference between what people want and what they think they want. That they have been propagandised by media into wanting what is trivial, accepting that what is bad for them is good for them, and that anything that diverts them from the real matters is grist to the media mill.
BTW the link I posted was the wrong book - I have amended it to the book that I am reading.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when Murdoch comes face to face with Dennis Skinner...... [lol]
Hm - Chomsky would argue that there is a difference between what people want and what they think they want. That they have been propagandised by media into wanting what is trivial, accepting that what is bad for them is good for them, and that anything that diverts them from the real matters is grist to the media mill.
BTW the link I posted was the wrong book - I have amended it to the book that I am reading.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when Murdoch comes face to face with Dennis Skinner...... [lol]
LOL at Dennis Skinner, now there is a dinosaur. I think you credit media with too much influence and people with too little common sense.
What people, I believe, want is good quality stuff cheap. The only way this can be provided is by large corporations buying from the most economical source. And as this is driven further and further the ultra capitalism and globalisation grows. So if people are to get what they want e.g. a computer that isn't made in Greenock and costs £3000, then that is the way the world will continue to develop. I just wish people would recognise that stuff they complain about is fueled by there own desires.
John Little
19-Jul-11, 21:39
What people, I believe, want is good quality stuff cheap. The only way this can be provided is by large corporations buying from the most economical source. And as this is driven further and further the ultra capitalism and globalisation grows. So if people are to get what they want e.g. a computer that isn't made in Greenock and costs £3000, then that is the way the world will continue to develop. I just wish people would recognise that stuff they compalin about is fueled by there own desires.
Good quality stuff. Cheap.
Fine.
You get your trainers for £70 and the Vietnamese who makes them gets 20p.
Sure - that's life. Abusive, exploitative- and the only way.
Or so we are led to believe.
You underestimate greatly the power of propaganda. There are reasons why we accept capitalism in its present form and it has much to do with assumptions pumped out at us without ceasing by the media.
I had some friends years ago who started a small business. They made leather animals and sold them to a well known and very large manufacturer of sofas. They were delighted to get a contract to supply such a large company.
They went out of business in the interval between supplying the goods and the company bothering to pay them.
Did this stimulate business? Was it good for capitalism?
That's globalism in a nutshell. Legislation was not in place requiring them to pay in a set period so the smaller business went to the wall.
I don't call that capitalism. It's just dog eat dog.
It's not even a 'free market'. It's abuse of power.
Beneficial capitalism that walks hand in hand with democracy works on a level playing field. What we have now is lumpy to say the least.
But the greatest triumph of the propaganda of the corporate-owned news media is in its ability to make chaps like you accept the situation without question and laud it as the only available option.
In reality it reminds me of the Middle Ages where the rulers had a lot of trouble with 'over-mighty subjects'.
What else is Murdoch but a robber baron?
John Little
19-Jul-11, 21:47
BTW - if you really think that global capitalism in its present form is so good, then it might be well to go and have a good stare at Tescos and the Co-op in Thurso and Tescos in Wick.
Then go and have a look at the town centres with their flourishing small enterprises.....
Good quality stuff. Cheap.
Fine.
You get your trainers for £70 and the Vietnamese who makes them gets 20p.
Sure - that's life. Abusive, exploitative- and the only way.
Or so we are led to believe.
You underestimate greatly the power of propaganda. There are reasons why we accept capitalism in its present form and it has much to do with assumptions pumped out at us without ceasing by the media.
I had some friends years ago who started a small business. They made leather animals and sold them to a well known and very large manufacturer of sofas. They were delighted to get a contract to supply such a large company.
They went out of business in the interval between supplying the goods and the company bothering to pay them.
Did this stimulate business? Was it good for capitalism?
That's globalism in a nutshell. Legislation was not in place requiring them to pay in a set period so the smaller business went to the wall.
I don't call that capitalism. It's just dog eat dog.
It's not even a 'free market'. It's abuse of power.
Beneficial capitalism that walks hand in hand with democracy works on a level playing field. What we have now is lumpy to say the least.
But the greatest triumph of the propaganda of the corporate-owned news media is in its ability to make chaps like you accept the situation without question and laud it as the only available option.
In reality it reminds me of the Middle Ages where the rulers had a lot of trouble with 'over-mighty subjects'.
What else is Murdoch but a robber baron?
Where am I getting my propaganda from? I haven't read a newspaper in 30 years. I am not a consumer. I don't buy trainers until therealducati points out that they are falling apart and smell really really bad. ( and I wouldnt pay more than about 25 quid).
I only really watch the BBC news.
John Little
19-Jul-11, 21:53
Propaganda is not just what you read. Jaques Ellul, probably the leading writer on propaganda in the 2oth century called propaganda 'the glue that hold society together'. It's the influences that that shape our assumptions and what we believe. Our attitudes, our morals, our ethics are all based on it. Control those influences and you control society.
Goebbels said it in three words; 'Propaganda is everything'
He was right.
If I described the world I would like to live in, it would be the 1950s (and I was born in 1960) Failing that I just won't buy an IPad.:Razz
John Little
19-Jul-11, 22:00
Even our view of the 50s is just propaganda. It wasn't that good.
If you have a mind to, read the contents of the grey box...
http://www.edgeofgrace.net/2006/11/10/jacques-ellul-on-propaganda/
Even our view of the 50s is just propaganda. It wasn't that good.
If you have a mind to, read the contents of the grey box...
http://www.edgeofgrace.net/2006/11/10/jacques-ellul-on-propaganda/
I was tempted to leave a comment. "What a load of....." Why do self proclaimed interlectuals constantly try to tell me why and what I think?
Could this be progaganda? :roll:
John Little
20-Jul-11, 07:54
Ah well if that's your reaction to Ellul then there's not a lot more to say about this.
Ah well if that's your reaction to Ellul then there's not a lot more to say about this.
Well, he rather catagorised the man in the street as a London commuter (by his description). To me the man in the street scratches his earse a lot, reads the Sun (for page 3) and is more concerned about beer and fags than who or what propaganda he is being subjected to.
Do you not see the irony of one person's beliefs proving them right and another's beliefs proving them the victim of propaganda?
John Little
20-Jul-11, 08:10
But that's exactly what he was saying! And it's not his fault - there's just too much to take in so everybody uses short cuts, soundbites and simplifications to make sense of the world. If you can control or influence those then you can control a lot of what goes on. Information is power.
And Ellul was not alone in what he said. Chomsky says it - but Harold Lasswell said it before either of them and you can't dismiss him so easily;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell
But that's exactly what he was saying! And it's not his fault - there's just too much to take in so everybody uses short cuts, soundbites and simplifications to make sense of the world. If you can control or influence those then you can control a lot of what goes on. Information is power.
And Ellul was not alone in what he said. Chomsky says it - but Harold Lasswell said it before either of them and you can't dismiss him so easily;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell
Lol we should start an org breakfast club. Lasswell had some good insights and his behavioural work is used practically today in things like Management and Leadership development (along with a lot of other complimentary and conflicting ideas) I'm not disputing that propaganda works. That it impresses they hell out of the people that would seek to use it and completely bypasses the target on many occasions is my position.
For it to work in the way you suggest would require all sources to be talking with a united voice. That to me, is too much of a conspiracy theory.:D
Yes Yes I know Murdoch controls a lot of media (although judging by yesterdays performance you would think he couldn't control his bowels.) Consumate actor if you ask me.
The modern day media is now so diverse that it has bypassed the media empires such as News Int. and made them largely irrelivant. I would say that modern media is even more slanted and controlled but by so many different entities that the effect is cancelled out.
John Little
20-Jul-11, 09:06
You don't think that Polly Toynbee's comment in the Guardian yesterday that 80% of media is controlled by the right wing of politics might imply a slight bias in the unconscious propaganda that is pumped out?
Arghhhh--- wife wants laptop gerrofff....helpp.......
You don't think that Polly Toynbee's comment in the Guardian yesterday that 80% of media is controlled by the right wing of politics might imply a slight bias in the unconscious propaganda that is pumped out?
Arghhhh--- wife wants laptop gerrofff....helpp.......
It depends on what you mean by Media, right wing and controlled.
I don't read the Guardian and don't know who Polly Toynbee (made up name) is.
I mean the media of all the world, that includes social networking and forums. If you compare users to readers there is no contest. Print media is dead and will soon be buried.
John Little
20-Jul-11, 11:16
Perhaps we should delete 'media' and substitute 'information'. And to control the flow of information you are often rich (so you can afford empires for the dissemination of information) and orientated towards business.
It's the flow of information that makes up minds and shapes policy- and how it changes.
So to get back to the OP - if that information is the best vision that think tank has for our future, I don't want it.
weezer 316
20-Jul-11, 13:56
Im sorry but its not propoganda at all! Everything you seem to believe is the truth and the rest is propoganda. You even tried to link the capitalism and its bad effects to the fact we were in the union and that independence would solve it, despite the fact the SNP would cut corporation tax!
John Little
20-Jul-11, 14:49
So the view that we are in the do-do and everyone's got to tighten their belts because they've been over-spending is not propaganda?
It's the truth - right?
I claim no monopoly on truth - but I do question the correctness of what we are being fed.
As for the SNP - yes if they prefer to spend money on community and people rather than writing off corporate taxes, cutting services and putting people out of jobs, then I can well see why people would vote for them.
What they offer is much more attractive than the alternative.
John Little
20-Jul-11, 15:19
And all from a front bench of millionaires too - bit rich that...
Loved this comment under your article;
So the British worker has to pay off the Bankers debts , the fraudulent derivatives, The corporate captains of industry like the top shop folk fiddle their tax returns and will pay nothing. A general strike is what is called for, withdraw all your money out of the banks do not comply with your own slavery.
- John Marsh, Bridgetown Barbados,
I do seem to recall that it was the British taxpayer who bailed the banks out.
Seems to me that they work for us now - don't they?
Actually W I am finding this so thought provoking that I want to start another thread and ask a few questions - maybe se you there?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.