View Full Version : Capitalism.
Is capitalism a good or bad thing. Sometimes I feel it is good, than at other times I feel it is bad!
Angel...
NickInTheNorth
17-Jul-11, 21:54
Is capitalism a good or bad thing. Sometimes I feel it is good, than at other times I feel it is bad!
Angel...
The most pernicious influence on modern society, it leads to situations such as the recent banking fiasco, the current media/police/political imbroglio
It is an outdated and despicable system
But I don't really have any good alternative to offer :(
I would defend capitalism as a system but it's very nature is evolutionary in it's practice. The survival of the fittest. Maybe eventually we will evolve enough and change our natures so that everyone will live idyllic lives but I doubt it will happen in the next 5000 years. That's the direction its going though. It's also compatible with democracies.
I think we should have a system where everyone gets the same income no matter how hard they work and how much wealth they produce for the country. We should all live in the same mass produced abodes and drive Trabants.
If we complain, we should be sent to the frozen north to......oh, haud on :eek:
Two blokes, one mega rich, the other not so rich by far, they both love the Haywain by Constable, the rich man buys the original for countless millions who is also too busy to to enjoy it because he is focussed on creating his next business opportunity, the other man buys a print for £5.99 and pins it up on his living room wall and glances at it every night.
Who is daftest?
Kevin Milkins
17-Jul-11, 23:31
Two blokes, one mega rich, the other not so rich by far, they both love the Haywain by Constable, the rich man buys the original for countless millions who is also too busy to to enjoy it because he is focussed on creating his next business opportunity, the other man buys a print for £5.99 and pins it up on his living room wall and glances at it every night.
Who is daftest?
The second one of course, you can get them for £4.99 in the factory shop.
linnie612
17-Jul-11, 23:34
Is capitalism a good or bad thing. Sometimes I feel it is good, than at other times I feel it is bad!
Angel...
Oh, dear..
The second one of course, you can get them for £4.99 in the factory shop.
Sweatshop manager in the making!! :)
Its the ism thats the problem. None of them are worth a spit in the wind.
ism is ultmatly an anagram of sucks!!
rogermellie
18-Jul-11, 02:24
Its the ism thats the problem. None of them are worth a spit in the wind.
ism is ultmatly an anagram of sucks!!
admittedly, most isms do mean something negative
but what about tourism or the 2 Ronnie's spoonerisms ?
not sure about the OP's question about capitalism, it's got it's good and bad points i suppose
Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
John Little
18-Jul-11, 12:27
Capitalism is not the problem. It's the form of Capitalism which is used right now that is the problem, because it has nothing to do with Democracy. Capitalism should be the tool of Democracy, to develop it and enrich it. Instead it's the other way round. The form of Capitalism which has evolved to be dominant is called 'Neo-Liberalism' which is another way of saying the law of the jungle.
There is nothing wrong with Capitalism. It's a bit like a lump of rock waiting to be carved into a statue. The form it takes depends on how you cut it.
"Neoliberalism is the defining political economic paradigm of our time - it refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit. Associated initially with Reagan and Thatcher, neoliberalism has for the past two decades been the dominant global political economic trend adopted by political parties of the center, much of the traditional left, and the right. These parties and the policies they enact represent the immediate interests of extremely wealthy investors and less than one thousand large corporations........
http://whosemedia.com/authors/mcchesney_robert_w/noam_chomsky_and_the_strugg.html
My friend says I am a Capitalist because I own property in England and Scotland. But he actually earns more than I do and spends it unwisely. Whereas I save, buy and develope rundown properties etc. He says it like it's or I am bad!
Angel...
I think we should have a system where everyone gets the same income no matter how hard they work and how much wealth they produce for the country. We should all live in the same mass produced abodes and drive Trabants.Hmmm, sounds good. Like us all being equal like, 'cept some of us will be me more equal than others though. Right?
Hmmm, sounds good. Like us all being equal like, 'cept some of us will be me more equal than others though. Right?
That's quite right. Now run along there's a good chap, I have important stuff to do... er for the common good. :D
Now, where's the keys to the Zil? There had better not be any Trabants in the VIP lane again!
As John said there are many forms of capitalism, my main problem with it or the system we have, whether it's true capitalism or not is that it's supposed to reward people with a ability, pushing the best, the brightest and the hard working to the top what happens in practice is that it supports friends, family and drinking buddies. As a point of order, it's also important to point out that all communist nations were that in name only.
As John said there are many forms of capitalism, my main problem with it or the system we have, whether it's true capitalism or not is that it's supposed to reward people with a ability, pushing the best, the brightest and the hard working to the top what happens in practice is that it supports friends, family and drinking buddies. As a point of order, it's also important to point out that all communist nations were that in name only.
I disagree, Capitalism doesn't push the right people to the top. The right people push themselves to the top. If they needed pushing they wouldnt be the right people. That doesn't sound right but you get the idea.
John Little
21-Jul-11, 09:39
I disagree, Capitalism doesn't push the right people to the top. The right people push themselves to the top. If they needed pushing they wouldnt be the right people. That doesn't sound right but you get the idea.
Social Darwinism.
The curse of the 20th century.
That's the doctrine that places Murdoch at the pinnacle of a news empire, Stephenson at the top of the Met and Ghaddafi ruling Libya. The doctrine that they who shout, scream, push and elbow their way are fit to lead.
It's time we moved on from that savagery; our civilisation should put us above that.
Social Darwinism.
The curse of the 20th century.
That's the doctrine that places Murdoch at the pinnacle of a news empire, Stephenson at the top of the Met and Ghaddafi ruling Libya. The doctrine that they who shout, scream, push and elbow their way are fit to lead.
It's time we moved on from that savagery; our civilisation should put us above that.
A bit of an extreme reaction to career planning! Are you suggesting that anyone with ambition is to be vilified? I think you need to rethink some of your recent tirades. :(
John Little
21-Jul-11, 10:44
A bit of an extreme reaction to career planning! Are you suggesting that anyone with ambition is to be vilified? I think you need to rethink some of your recent tirades. :(
I'm too old a bunny to go for that seriously.
Where have I decried ambition?
It's an old saw that those who want power should not be given it. I have seen too many incompetents in top positions in my lifetime to believe that the law of the jungle should decide who gets promoted into positions of influence.
Go into our schools and you will find head-teachers who cannot control a class. Police stations who have middle managers who are no good on the beat. Hospital managers who have nothing to do with healing. I've seen too many bright faces with the gift of the gab and not enough brain cells blag their way into positions they are not fit to hold.
I suspect you have too.
Ambition is well enough.
So are selection procedures and they should be based on ability to do a job, not flannel and who you know and what school or university you went to.
I have also seen too many competent people holding places together despite the idiots in charge.
Social Darwinism and Democracy do not mix.
I go further- Social Darwinism and totalitarianism are best buddies and I include totalitariansm of the left, the right - and of large corporations.
John Little
21-Jul-11, 12:21
Duke - there is one thing that really puzzles me about you.
I just don't get what you get out of the current situation. There is a fine line between market exploitation, which is a better form of Capitalism than market oppression which the current mob call free market radicalism.
There seems to be an emerging consensus that a process is going on which transfers wealth from poor to rich - that a massive redistribution of what was taxpayer money is going on and that its use is not always either appropriate or producing the results that it could and should. That taxes on everything from petrol to VAT to gas, electricity etc are going up.
Yet you seem almost enthusiastic in supporting this.
Why?
There seems to be an emerging consensus that a process is going on which transfers wealth from poor to rich - that a massive redistribution of what was taxpayer money is going on
It seems to me that the opposite is going on - the rich are already taxed higher than Joe Average and the unemployed get 'handouts' (for want of a better word). The loser is the middle man who is neither rich nor poor - not earning little enough to claim any benefits but not earning a enough to get a life they feel they deserve.
Unfortunately (unless you are on benefits) you get paid what you get paid. Those that are canny choose a career that pays well and are seen to do 'well' out of life, those that don't choose a career that pays well unfortunately will always be worse off. It may be said that they may not have the resources (either financially or mentally) to get the better jobs but we just do the best we can so we can give our children a little bit more than we were raised with in the hope that they will be able to become high fliers. In theory if each generation strives to do just that little bit better than the previous then society grows. Unfortunately there will always be the jobs to be filled that noone wants to do :(
I wouldn't say that todays society is darwin capitalism I would say is a bizarre combination between capitalism and socialism - people want the goodies that capitalism brings but without putting in the work beforehand. Too much is bought on 'tic' now - whatever happened to saving up for something until you can afford it? Credit is given far too easily and people believe that they 'deserve' a big telly, expensive car, foreign holiday whether they can afford it or not. IMO keeping up with the Jones' is what has killed the country. The banks lent money to people without the means to pay it back and as a result we had the collapse. The banks should take responsibility for loaning money that can't be repaid, but I think society should take a little responsibility ourselves for borrowing the money in the first place.
Each month, after the bills are paid, I have a choice - what does the little amount that is left get spent on? Can we justify spending it on a second car (no), can we justify spending it on a holiday abroad (no) - we choose to spend it on the hobbies that enrich our lives daily. It's the little things that make us happy not the big things - I'm as guilty as the next man for falling into the materialistic trap. I have now dug myself out of it and only spend my money on what truly matters to me - and what I can actually afford...
NickInTheNorth
21-Jul-11, 15:35
It seems to me that the opposite is going on - the rich are already taxed higher than Joe Average and the unemployed get 'handouts' (for want of a better word). The loser is the middle man who is neither rich nor poor - not earning little enough to claim any benefits but not earning a enough to get a life they feel they deserve.
No, the rich pay higher marginal rates on income, other than that we all pay the same rate of VAT Duty etc, therefore given that the rich are capable of spending far higher amounts than the poor the actual percentage of income taken in tax from the rich is way lower than taken from the poor.
It used to be seen as a universal truth that to be fair any tax system should be "progressive".
Unfortunately (unless you are on benefits) you get paid what you get paid. Those that are canny choose a career that pays well and are seen to do 'well' out of life, those that don't choose a career that pays well unfortunately will always be worse off. It may be said that they may not have the resources (either financially or mentally) to get the better jobs but we just do the best we can so we can give our children a little bit more than we were raised with in the hope that they will be able to become high fliers. In theory if each generation strives to do just that little bit better than the previous then society grows. Unfortunately there will always be the jobs to be filled that noone wants to do
It is very sad to see anyone judging "better" simply in terms of wealth. It illustrates one of the great shortcomings of capitalism, it judges an individuals worth solely by the size of the bank balance.
As regards the statement that there will always be the jobs no one wants to do, that's true there will be, but there would be far less of them if jobs paid a decent living wage. As long as supporters of capitalism think it is ok to pay an individual less than is required to live on then because they can then society will not "grow", the current situation will prevail, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get exploited.
I wouldn't say that todays society is darwin capitalism I would say is a bizarre combination between capitalism and socialism - people want the goodies that capitalism brings but without putting in the work beforehand. Too much is bought on 'tic' now - whatever happened to saving up for something until you can afford it? Credit is given far too easily and people believe that they 'deserve' a big telly, expensive car, foreign holiday whether they can afford it or not. IMO keeping up with the Jones' is what has killed the country. The banks lent money to people without the means to pay it back and as a result we had the collapse. The banks should take responsibility for loaning money that can't be repaid, but I think society should take a little responsibility ourselves for borrowing the money in the first place.
Agreed
Each month, after the bills are paid, I have a choice - what does the little amount that is left get spent on? Can we justify spending it on a second car (no), can we justify spending it on a holiday abroad (no) - we choose to spend it on the hobbies that enrich our lives daily. It's the little things that make us happy not the big things - I'm as guilty as the next man for falling into the materialistic trap. I have now dug myself out of it and only spend my money on what truly matters to me - and what I can actually afford...
It would be so good to have a little left at the end of the month to have to make a decision on...
John Little
21-Jul-11, 15:43
It's this eagerness to blame Joe public and ourselves that strikes me as almost masochistic; there's a certain Puritanism to it or like something moralistic from the Bible - ye did live too long in luxurious apparel and did buy 4x4s and tellies and dishwashers and now thou shalt pay the price of thine over-indulgence...
I can't blame people for wanting a better standard of living if it's pumped out to them that this is the way they should be living. That's really how society functions - consumerism. Mess with consumerism and you collapse society. So take the spending power out of people's pockets and concentrate it in the hands of fewer people and you get unemployment and falling demand.
I have no objection to taxing the rich more according to their means; they earn more by using an infrastructure that they did not build - it was built by communal effort and tax money. Someone opens a factory and sell stuff then they send it down railways and motorways and through docks that you and I have paid for. Their workforce needs a level of education which they did not pay for - you and I did - and so on.
No-one grows rich in a vacuum. Anyone who thinks that should be set on an island without any infrastructure and see how rich they get without what society provides them.
You get rich, you earn more so you pay more. That seems fair to me.
Th welfare scroungers and the wilfully unemployed is wearing rather thin. Benefits are hardly munificent and the much vaunted clamping down on benefit scroungers is lessening those abuses by the day. But I'll bet you a dime to a dollar that they are a drop in the ocean compared to the £7.5 billion profit that Shell was allowed to make last quarter- after tax. Or the £12 billion set aside to pay bonuses by Goldman Sachs alone.
I don't grudge you your car, your sofa, your holiday, your hobby Leanne and I don't think you should beat yourself up over it. You did not cause this mess - it was running along nicely enough. If your tax money had not been filched wholesale and diverted to other purposes then you'd have watched some banks crash.
Period.
The government could have and should have stepped in to save the high street arms of the businesses - and imposed stern conditions for doing so. But the investment arms should have gone to the wall.
There's greed in this alright - naked greed and avarice.
But not by you, or me, or your neighbours. Throw your guilt in the bin.
The rich all over the world are taxed less (that's relatively as a percentage) now that they were in previous decades back to the 50s. I really wish society would go post scarcity so we could stop using the acquisition of wealth as a measure of a persons worth but it's just not going to happen. We also need to make a distinction between a person that inherits money and makes more money with it and a person who started with nothing.
I also agree that people who want power or top jobs usually aren't the best suited for them, but philosophers and known and that said for ages all the way back to Plato's Republic.
Duke - there is one thing that really puzzles me about you.
I just don't get what you get out of the current situation. There is a fine line between market exploitation, which is a better form of Capitalism than market oppression which the current mob call free market radicalism.
There seems to be an emerging consensus that a process is going on which transfers wealth from poor to rich - that a massive redistribution of what was taxpayer money is going on and that its use is not always either appropriate or producing the results that it could and should. That taxes on everything from petrol to VAT to gas, electricity etc are going up.
Yet you seem almost enthusiastic in supporting this.
Why?
Lots of words there I don't know the meaning of. So I will just have to assume you don't like the current situation. Who does? What would you do about it?
John, I never said the banking crisis was caused by Joe public. In fact I said it couldn't have been.
As far as 'being the best you can be' I see nothing wrong and a lot right with that outlook. The people that iritate me are the ones that complain about their own lot and criticise others for improving their's but do nothing themselves to change it.
I'm confused now, I might have put that on the wrong thread.
Another observation. Do you really believe that there is a conspiracy to take money away from the poor and give it to the rich? As a deliberate policy? By the current administration? If you do, then I really can't help, sorry.
John Little
21-Jul-11, 17:06
So you do not take the Tory line that we have been spending too much , that our national credit card is maxed out and we have to pay it all back in as short a time as possible?
We - meaning us. Joe and Josephine Public.
What would I do about it?
I'd nationalise the banks now - they're ours anyway.
I'd send in auditors from HM treasury and Inland revenue, grim faced and ruthless and use the funds to revitalise industry and employ people so that they pay taxes and get the cycle of prosperity moving again.
I'd remind folk that JM Keynes lived once.
So you do not take the Tory line that we have been spending too much , that our national credit card is maxed out and we have to pay it all back in as short a time as possible?
We - meaning us. Joe and Josephine Public.
What would I do about it?
I'd nationalise the banks now - they're ours anyway.
I'd send in auditors from HM treasury and Inland revenue, grim faced and ruthless and use the funds to revitalise industry and employ people so that they pay taxes and get the cycle of prosperity moving again.
I'd remind folk that JM Keynes lived once.
Ah' you see I thought the Tory line was that the previous administration spent too much. People spending too much stimulates the economy it doesn't damage it. The percentage of people who default on consumer loans is relatively small and for relatively small amounts. If you buy on credit, not only do you pay for the goods and help manufacturers and retailers you pay for the credit helping the financial services industry. Its a double win. Well worth the cost of a few defaults.
The credit crunch which started it all was caused by the banks all but stopping lending to each other. This may have been as a result of mistrust building up over the selling of toxic debts. But it exposed a long term under capitalisation position that seems to have gone either un-noticed or un-heeded.
John Little
21-Jul-11, 17:19
'Conspiracy theorist' - immediately discredits anyone who finds a conspiracy and inspires calls for tinfoil hats.
There is no conspiracy.
It's much much more complicated.
There is a global market.
The global market favours the big companies.
The organisation of big companies is not democratic - it's feudal.
The values and imperatives in those organisations are not geared to people, but profit, loss, advantage and market share.
The more power these organisations get, the more their values trickle out through society and the controlled media until those values dominate.
Not a conspiracy.
But forces which are anti-democratic and which put profit before people.
I have no objection to taxing the rich more according to their means; they earn more by using an infrastructure that they did not build - it was built by communal effort and tax money. Someone opens a factory and sell stuff then they send it down railways and motorways and through docks that you and I have paid for. Their workforce needs a level of education which they did not pay for - you and I did - and so on.
nice post john,, there would be no rich people if ordinary people are not there to make the products or whatever, and your statement above is only the tip of the iceberg, there would be nothing if not for peeps working on normal and low wages
no power ,, no clean water,, no food,, no nothing,, ordinary taxpayers have payed for all in this country since after ww2 , and what for, so a select few can live like gods on earth, the whole system has been raped by the few for the few.
since maggie got in with r murdochs backing in 79,
there will always be people with too much money,,and fair enough, you work hard you get rewarded, but how much is enough,, 1 billion or 5 billion, 50 billion, where does it stop, this money is always made of the backs of normal folks bairns.
time to take back i say, vive la revolution,, lol
nationalise everything and start fae scratch.
oh and more than 20 billion a year is defrauded by the super rich every year in this country, the brew leaches only defraud 1-2 billion a year, funny how cameron is chasing the latter,,
John Little
21-Jul-11, 17:24
Ah' you see I thought the Tory line was that the previous administration spent too much. People spending too much stimulates the economy it doesn't damage it. The percentage of people who default on consumer loans is relatively small and for relatively small amounts. If you buy on credit, not only do you pay for the goods and help manufacturers and retailers you pay for the credit helping the financial services industry. Its a double win. Well worth the cost of a few defaults.
The credit crunch which started it all was caused by the banks all but stopping lending to each other. This may have been as a result of mistrust building up over the selling of toxic debts. But it exposed a long term under capitalisation position that seems to have gone either un-noticed or un-heeded.
So- to follow this through, the credit crunch was not caused by government over-spending because the government spends money it raises from tax and invisibles earned on that tax - and the expectation of tax. But if you take the money out of people's pockets they can no longer spend so business contracts.
Logically then the big mistake was to take the money out of people's pockets and give it to the banks.
Because there it sits.
And demand stays low and consumerism cannot end the depression.
The conclusion is the same - the money has to come back into people's pockets from the banks.
How?
I have no objection to taxing the rich more according to their means; they earn more by using an infrastructure that they did not build - it was built by communal effort and tax money. Someone opens a factory and sell stuff then they send it down railways and motorways and through docks that you and I have paid for. Their workforce needs a level of education which they did not pay for - you and I did - and so on.
nice post john,, there would be no rich people if ordinary people are not there to make the products or whatever, and your statement above is only the tip of the iceberg, there would be nothing if not for peeps working on normal and low wages
no power ,, no clean water,, no food,, no nothing,, ordinary taxpayers have payed for all in this country since after ww2 , and what for, so a select few can live like gods on earth, the whole system has been raped by the few for the few.
since maggie got in with r murdochs backing in 79,
there will always be people with too much money,,and fair enough, you work hard you get rewarded, but how much is enough,, 1 billion or 5 billion, 50 billion, where does it stop, this money is always made of the backs of normal folks bairns.
time to take back i say, vive la revolution,, lol
nationalise everything and start fae scratch.
oh and more than 20 billion a year is defrauded by the super rich every year in this country, the brew leaches only defraud 1-2 billion a year, funny how cameron is chasing the latter,,
I've tried to take your posts seriously but now I give up. :~(
John Little
21-Jul-11, 17:28
I've tried to take your posts seriously but now I give up. :~(
Not an answer though.
thank god for that duke, rofl;)
So- to follow this through, the credit crunch was not caused by government over-spending because the government spends money it raises from tax and invisibles earned on that tax - and the expectation of tax. But if you take the money out of people's pockets they can no longer spend so business contracts.
No, as I understand it, the gov. spent money it borrowed, knowing full well that there was not enough income through tax to cover it.
It is very sad to see anyone judging "better" simply in terms of wealth. It illustrates one of the great shortcomings of capitalism, it judges an individuals worth solely by the size of the bank balance.
But it's not - it's judging someone on their contributions to society. In general the jobs that are seen to be more 'worthwhile' - doctors, lawyers etc - tend to require more training/knowledge and therefore pay more. Someone working in an 'unskilled' job will automatically earn less. Society rewards those that reward society - it doesn't make them a better person, or a worse person, it just acknowledges their contribution. Less contribution=less back.
My dad is a sheet metal worker and will never be rich - it's the career he chose and he lives within his means and is happy with this. He bought the worst house in the best area he could afford and spent years renovating it. This meant that me and my sister we able to go to a school that achieved better results than the one he went to and we both achieved good grades. My parents couldn't afford to send either of us to university so we both worked full time, studied part time, and got our degrees in our chosen careers. Hopefully I can give my kids a little more of a chance in life than I had. Not to say they will take it, but they will have an opportunity I didn't have. This is what capitalism is about - it's about investing in the future, investing in our country and investing in our children and childrens' children.
As far as paying people less than what it costs to live - does it? Or does it pay less than how people want to live? Do we need satelite TV, computers, ready meals, 2 cars, even to own our own house? The answer is that we don't need it, but society has grown to see it as a right, when it isn't. In the 'olden days' people didn't spend beyond their means, didn't (generally) own their own houses, they didn't take expensive holidays, they didn't throw away that piece of cheese because it had a bit of mould on it - they cut the mould off and ate the rest, the fat from off the roast wouldn't be thrown, it would have been used for dripping butties with the tail end of the stale loaf that gets thrown nowadays, kids lived in hand-me-down clothes. This is all seen as 'beneath' people now - that is the problem. If we lived in a less disposable society people would have more money and life would be less hard.
Socialism rewards everyone equally without recoginising their contributions to the grand scheme of things - how does that drive society forwards? Where does the desire to better the world come into it? Why would someone spend huge amounts of their time and intellect designing/inventing/fixing something when they aren't going to get rewarded for it? Should we do it for the good of our hearts? If your answer to that is 'yes' - why?
Today's society rewards the weak and penalises the strong - quite a backward way of thinking and it has resulted in a backwards progression of society :(
But it's not - it's judging someone on their contributions to society. In general the jobs that are seen to be more 'worthwhile' - doctors, lawyers etc - tend to require more training/knowledge and therefore pay more. Someone working in an 'unskilled' job will automatically earn less. Society rewards those that reward society - it doesn't make them a better person, or a worse person, it just acknowledges their contribution. Less contribution=less back.
My dad is a sheet metal worker and will never be rich - it's the career he chose and he lives within his means and is happy with this. He bought the worst house in the best area he could afford and spent years renovating it. This meant that me and my sister we able to go to a school that achieved better results than the one he went to and we both achieved good grades. My parents couldn't afford to send either of us to university so we both worked full time, studied part time, and got our degrees in our chosen careers. Hopefully I can give my kids a little more of a chance in life than I had. Not to say they will take it, but they will have an opportunity I didn't have. This is what capitalism is about - it's about investing in the future, investing in our country and investing in our children and childrens' children.
As far as paying people less than what it costs to live - does it? Or does it pay less than how people want to live? Do we need satelite TV, computers, ready meals, 2 cars, even to own our own house? The answer is that we don't need it, but society has grown to see it as a right, when it isn't. In the 'olden days' people didn't spend beyond their means, didn't (generally) own their own houses, they didn't take expensive holidays, they didn't throw away that piece of cheese because it had a bit of mould on it - they cut the mould off and ate the rest, the fat from off the roast wouldn't be thrown, it would have been used for dripping butties with the tail end of the stale loaf that gets thrown nowadays, kids lived in hand-me-down clothes. This is all seen as 'beneath' people now - that is the problem. If we lived in a less disposable society people would have more money and life would be less hard.
Socialism rewards everyone equally without recoginising their contributions to the grand scheme of things - how does that drive society forwards? Where does the desire to better the world come into it? Why would someone spend huge amounts of their time and intellect designing/inventing/fixing something when they aren't going to get rewarded for it? Should we do it for the good of our hearts? If your answer to that is 'yes' - why?
Today's society rewards the weak and penalises the strong - quite a backward way of thinking and it has resulted in a backwards progression of society :(
I think you'll find todays society - as it always has done - rewards people based on family lines and friendships, with a few exceptions. It does not penalise the strong and reward the weak, those are relative terms anyway. Right now we have it shoved down out throats that anyone who is fired should become an 'entrepreneur' 'start a business' and 'generate wealth'. Not everyone who is fired can start a business, not every who is fired wants the debt associated with starting a business and some people just aspire to different goals. Also I wouldn't call someone who inherited a fortune, has never worked and bought an education, strong, would you? I amazed at how the rich do this, they must have the best PR machine of all time they somehow get the poor and average people to fight for their causes. It's like getting a Turkey to argue for Christmas.
If we must go the social darwinist route, why not start everyone off on equal footing, get rid of inheritence etc. Why not go one step further, get rid of the police force and allow physical prowess to dictate ones worth. If that's a step too far then allow dueling in the streets.
As for why someone would do something with no reward, or in your opinion no material reward. There are many reasons: because they can, betterment of the species, to improve the lives of others etc. A ton of things have been developed for these reasons.
I see it as choices.. We don't have to borrow - but we choose to do so. Someone offers a rate and we choose to pay it. We don't have to save our money - but we choose to do so. We don't have to work, but we choose to do so. We don't have slob all day on the sofa, but we choose to do so. It's all a matter of choice.
Angel...
It's more like the appearance of choice: You can work in an exploitative job or you can not eat. I've never been on benefits or had to claim job seekers but I'm always amazed about how we always want to crack down on benefit cheats and the undeserving poor but never tax cheats and dodgy companies.
John Little
22-Jul-11, 10:59
Like this you mean?
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html
Like this you mean?
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html
Precisely, that figure is rather conservative actually. That's £6 billion extra to pay of debt or I believe the benefit cuts announced by the government were £6 or £7 billion. The total lost to dodgy immoral companies or tax cheats is something like £115 - £175 billion a year depending on whose figures you believe.
As it happens I bought a lot off shares when the rumours started about this takeover. I made a lot of money on this deal. Now you are going to say. That is wrong. But I made a choice and took a chance. I also paid tax on my profits too. And I could have done the deal offshore but I made a choice and used a UK broker.
Angel...
John Little
22-Jul-11, 21:28
I can't think why anyone should say that is wrong. Nobody has said that Capitalism is wrong. It ain't, but like a fire it has to be kept regulated and controlled otherwise it ceases to be a warming friend and becomes a raging beast.
As it happens I bought a lot off shares when the rumours started about this takeover. I made a lot of money on this deal. Now you are going to say. That is wrong. But I made a choice and took a chance. I also paid tax on my profits too. And I could have done the deal offshore but I made a choice and used a UK broker.
Angel...
Would you like a cookie for doing the right thing?
This isn't about people speculating on shares anyway, it's about Vodafone doing something dodgy and getting away with it, well it's about them planning to rip of the tax system in a few countries, but getting caught out on a technically, then threatening to take their ball and go home. The details are explained here (http://www.progtaxblog.org.uk/2011/02/13/vodafone-and-how-the-eu-enables-tax-avoidance/) and on a wider scale it's about how capitalism isn't a panacea or the religion that some people seem to think it is.
oldmarine
23-Jul-11, 20:10
Is capitalism a good or bad thing. Sometimes I feel it is good, than at other times I feel it is bad!
Angel...
Capitalism can be a goodthing if it is correctly handled. Sometimes some people try to use it for personal gain at other peoples expense.
John Little
27-Jul-11, 20:28
This is an interesting video I think-
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
weezer 316
29-Jul-11, 12:52
Precisely, that figure is rather conservative actually. That's £6 billion extra to pay of debt or I believe the benefit cuts announced by the government were £6 or £7 billion. The total lost to dodgy immoral companies or tax cheats is something like £115 - £175 billion a year depending on whose figures you believe.
That's such utter piffal im laughing.
http://www.tuc.org.uk/touchstone/Missingbillions/1missingbillions.pdf
Thats a TUC report who I am sure you agree are likely to paint a worst case scenario. The say the cost is £25bn a year. Page 7 is a short summary of you cant be bothered reading (its pretty hard work actually.)
You are basically saying the govt is shafted for 25% of its income. Incredible.
John Little
29-Jul-11, 13:00
I'm having an interesting read of that Walter - thankyou for the link.
At the moment I am a bit puzzled by this on page 4;
"By the end of 2006, the cumulative tax savings recorded in the accounts of the fifty largest companies was £47 billion; this actually exceeded the total tax paid by all companies in 2006 by some £2 billion.
These figures strongly suggest that the regular complaints from the business community about the burden of tax they endure in the UK should be treated with a high degree of scepticism."
which seems a bit more than they initially suggest- but I'll read on.
John Little
29-Jul-11, 14:08
This bit is excellent;
The role of taxation
To understand and interpret the significance of the number that has been calculated for the tax gap the purpose of taxation itself has to be understood. Taxes are used to:
1. provide public funds
2. redistribute income to reduce poverty and inequality – progressive forms of taxation are one of the main means by which wealth is redistributed in any society
3. ‘reprice’ goods and services to ensure that all social and environmental costs of production and consumption are reflected in the market price
4. strengthen and protect channels of political representation
5. provide a tool for the management of an economy, usually in combination with government borrowing
In this context the tax gap is more significant than a figure for tax not available for the public purse, important as that is. Tax not paid also has the following outcomes.
1. It increases the gap between rich and poor in society, and in arbitrary fashion.
2. The democratic process is undermined. That process is dependent upon treating all people as equal before the law. If tax is not collected then the credibility of that equal treatment is threatened. In addition, if the legal system created by the democratic process appears to unreasonably favour some in society without apparent justification then the credibility of that process is, once more, undermined. This is particularly so if those favoured are a minority, as are those
with significant wealth in the UK who appear to enjoy particular favour in its tax system – much of the tax planning and avoidance that takes place being for their benefit, including that by companies of whom they are the owners. The majority of people gain the impression, therefore, that they are sharing a disproportionate share of the burden of tax, which leads to disenchantment with the political process.
3. Economic management is harder when some, including major corporations, seek to avoid the consequence of that process.
Whilst the analysis of the impact of the tax gap that follows tends to focus upon the amount of tax lost, the above issues are as important in the creation of social justice.'
John Little
29-Jul-11, 14:11
But this is superb- I'm grateful to you for it - very thought provoking;
Putting the numbers in context*
More important than considering the number as wealth, however, is to consider it as a lost income stream to fund socially desirable activity in the UK.
• One half of the amount lost to tax planning alone by those earning over £100,000 could increase the child tax credit by enough to halve child poverty in the UK.
• Just under half of the total amount lost to tax avoidance would pay for a 20% increase in the state pension or could reduce the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound, or could build an extra 50 hospitals.
• One quarter of the total tax income lost to avoidance activities would be enough to provide five-and-a-half million public service staff, who are currently facing the prospect of a real terms pay cut, with a pay settlement equivalent to the rise in average earnings across the economy in 2007.
• Just over a quarter of the total amount lost to tax avoidance could be used to increase the education budget by 10% or to increase the health budget by 6%.
• Half of the total amount lost to tax avoidance could raise the level at which the higher rate tax is paid by £10,000.
Do you want to rename 'AVOIDANCE' to 'EVASION'?
Angel...
John Little
30-Jul-11, 23:04
No - according to this document there is a difference between avoidance and evasion. Evasion is a crime whereas avoidance is not.
Why such an issue with tax avoidance?
When we go shopping we have, generally, a few different stores from which to choose. If shop A sell beans for 20p a tin and shop B sells the same tins for 35p the chances are we'll pay 20p.
So when the accountant comes along and says you can pay 20p tax or 35p tax what's going to happen?
With multinationals and high worth individuals they effectively have the option to 'shop' round for the best deals on tax and other costs. Is it better to have these finances spent, used, invested in the UK albeit in a 'tax efficient' manner or should we just wave bye bye and see other countries benefit.
Simply, part of the current problem is the lack of finace / funds being loaned, spent, pished up the wall or whatever. But the more cash that is in circulation helps the economy and in turn all of us.
Why such an issue with tax avoidance?
When we go shopping we have, generally, a few different stores from which to choose. If shop A sell beans for 20p a tin and shop B sells the same tins for 35p the chances are we'll pay 20p.
So when the accountant comes along and says you can pay 20p tax or 35p tax what's going to happen?
With multinationals and high worth individuals they effectively have the option to 'shop' round for the best deals on tax and other costs. Is it better to have these finances spent, used, invested in the UK albeit in a 'tax efficient' manner or should we just wave bye bye and see other countries benefit.
Simply, part of the current problem is the lack of finace / funds being loaned, spent, pished up the wall or whatever. But the more cash that is in circulation helps the economy and in turn all of us.
Its like the unpopular bonuses, for every £100,000 in bonuses paid to an employed individual (on PAYE) we (the UK) get £50,000 and the other £50,000 gets spent on a German car
John Little
31-Jul-11, 08:18
"Is it better to have these finances spent, used, invested in the UK albeit in a 'tax efficient' manner or should we just wave bye bye and see other countries benefit."
Good question.
I think that if we pay tax then we should pay it on an equal basis.
Why should you or I pay full whack when someone with enough dosh to pay an accountant finds every loophole they can and avoids paying their full share? That makes for an unjust system and throws the burden of paying on the ones with less money.
Which might be well enough if the ones with cash spent it in this country to create jobs etc.
But by the time you have, as Duke says, bought your German car, your Chinese telly, your Yank computer, your Japanese camera etc the effects of trickle down are a bit diluted.
"Is it better to have these finances spent, used, invested in the UK albeit in a 'tax efficient' manner or should we just wave bye bye and see other countries benefit."
Good question.
I think that if we pay tax then we should pay it on an equal basis.
Why should you or I pay full whack when someone with enough dosh to pay an accountant finds every loophole they can and avoids paying their full share? That makes for an unjust system and throws the burden of paying on the ones with less money.
Which might be well enough if the ones with cash spent it in this country to create jobs etc.
But by the time you have, as Duke says, bought your German car, your Chinese telly, your Yank computer, your Japanese camera etc the effects of trickle down are a bit diluted.
True enough, I remember when manufacturing starting going downhill in my area (South Manchester, famous for Lithographic Printing Machines and bloody great brass guages for ships :eek: ). Everyone was on strike, everyone was moaning, everyone was driving French, German, Japanese cars..... and I'm talking about the workers in the factories!
We do pay tax on an equal basis. As employees, everyone gets taxed the same regardless of wealth, and when those taxed earnings get spent it, broadly speaking, gets hit at 20% VAT. Not to mention fuel duties etc. etc. As far as I'm aware there are no breaks on this for the wealthy.
The self employed have different allowances but these are the same for a self employed cleaner, builder, plumber or merchant banker surely.
Wether some buys a German car or not is freedom of choice. (Are there any British cars left to buy?)
It all seems equal to me.
(on a side note, if I were Dicta....Prime Minister. I'd renegotiate our EU membership back down to a simple trade agreement and have VAT breaks for UK manufacturing and higher import taxes)
NickInTheNorth
05-Aug-11, 10:25
we do not pay tax on an equal basis simply because the tax burden has shifted from tax on income, which is a tax directly related to an individuals wealth, and thus ability to pay and shifted to tax on spending which does not relate to the ability to pay.
The end result is the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in tax than do the poor.
we do not pay tax on an equal basis simply because the tax burden has shifted from tax on income, which is a tax directly related to an individuals wealth, and thus ability to pay and shifted to tax on spending which does not relate to the ability to pay.
The end result is the wealthy pay a far smaller percentage of their income in tax than do the poor.
Devil's advocate - the rich buy far more luxuries as a result of their income so therefore still pay more tax (as well as paying 40% on their salaraies). Imagine someone rich pays £4000 for the latest 3D TV - they will contribute £800 tax. Someone buying an lower priced (but still expensive) TV at £1000 would only contribute £200 tax for effectively the same luxury. The more 'spare' cash you have the more you get taxed. It hits everyone but the govenment are thinking about revenue generation. If people aren't spending much anyway then they are paying little VAT, spend spend spend and it's £, £, £ in VAT for the government. The little guy like us doesn't contribute as much tax as we simply can't afford to spend the money.
I think in a cruel way it is a good thing - too many people have bought beyond their means (myself included to a degree) and now we are having to rein back and live truely within our means - and not buying things 'on tic'.
John Little
05-Aug-11, 17:28
£50 billion wiped off British shares yesterday. More today.
Were you all still over-spending?
Shame on you all - tighten your belts now.
It's all your fault.
I bought 2 coffees in Spoons this morning an I newspaper for 20p and my bus pass passed some debt on to the rest of you.
Has that 50 billion disappeared into thin air or has appeared somewhere else?
John Little
05-Aug-11, 18:02
So!!!
It was YOU!
Maxed out the nation's credit cards.
Well when there's nae siller to be had in the cashpoint machine the morning, I'll know who to blame!
You fat cat!
I have a theory, There is one person in the whole world who actually, ultimately owns all the cash.
They lend to the lenders who lend to the lenders who..you get the idea. So when you borrow a few pound to buy a car or spend on cosmetic surgery, many multiples of organisations and people are getting a cut.
Tis what makes the world go round.
John Little
05-Aug-11, 18:52
I bought 2 coffees in Spoons this morning an I newspaper for 20p and my bus pass passed some debt on to the rest of you.
Has that 50 billion disappeared into thin air or has appeared somewhere else?
The 50 billion never existed.
That's the point - and very much so.
It is money that is electronically created by banks who buy and sell it in the form of bonds.
They create it based on the expectation of what will happen in the future and in the hope of gaining profit from growth in the world economy.
If they fear that growth will not happen then they panic and begin to sell bonds and the prices of these bonds falls.
So the 50 billion existed as a hope, an aspiration.
Money is virtual.
It has to be.
If it were based on something you dig out of the ground like Gold then there would not be enough money to run things in the world.
So why dont they turn those bonds into hope and sell hope?
John Little
05-Aug-11, 19:37
That is the best question on this topic that I have ever read.
I don't know.
But hope is what they do buy and sell.
Why they are selling it now and not buying is a thing utterly beyond me.
But I think Roosevelt said it best ' 'The only thing we have to fear is....Fear itself, nameless, unreasoning fear...'
John Little
05-Aug-11, 19:50
Nothing is new.
"... let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
And this speech is worth reading in its entirety.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
John Little
05-Aug-11, 20:09
And for all the ashes and sackcloth people who blame themselves for overspending - you fall straight into Keyne's paradox of thrift.
The more you save, the less you earn.
So you will make the situation worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
John Little
05-Aug-11, 20:10
And as for Hayek - he was a nutter.
It's all a load of spin. A huge ponzi scheme. But we know that already.
I do believe that the whole thing is starting to unravel now, even the most financially inept and disinterested are looking and asking questions.
Just how much debt can we sell, buy, resell, rebuy, sell on and not make it look like a huge version of the original 'sub prime' debacle.
Are we now into Greek debt for yet another 15 million? How did we do that?? All being in this together like!
I'm setting up a privet fund or whatever they does be called, I'm after borrowing 100M on the business plan that no one gets paid otherwise I get me loan, then I'm gonna buy a shed load of shares, bonds and currency from the PIGS, then I'm going to sell it to the govt. But they'll say there skint so I'll tell 'em there'll be no cash in the cash machines tomorrow unless they increase the debt ceiling and borrow more to buy the borrowing I've bought with me borrowings.
If all goes to plan I'll walk away with 100M and everyone else is left with a load of debt.
And I wouldn't even need a mask like my long great uncle Dick.
Quality.
Seriously, I won't be saving in the forseeable future, I will buy stuff using my skill and judgement (and hope) that it at least retains it's value for when I need the cash.
But I think that is going to be the problem. What is cash worth? What will it be worth in 12 months time?
Is cash the safe bet it used to be? Will all those biscuit tins full of £50 notes under me bed be worth anything??
Everything is devalued apart from gold, today.
John Little
05-Aug-11, 21:54
Gold has fallen as well...
http://www.smh.com.au/business/gold-rush-still-on-despite-blip-20110805-1ifh7.html
A good Austin Healey 3000 was worth about £6000 10 to 15 years ago. today they sell for about £30,000
When you take into account the maintainance cost to keep it good for this period, would it have been a good investment?
Another example Triumph Bonneville 750. 20 years ago value maybe £1000 maybe less today a good one will fetch £6000 or more.
Should we buy stuff like this now? (if more people do it guarantees the prices will rise).
But I think that is going to be the problem. What is cash worth? What will it be worth in 12 months time?
Is cash the safe bet it used to be? Will all those biscuit tins full of £50 notes under me bed be worth anything??
Everything is devalued apart from gold, today.
Take the buscuit tins to Antiques Roadshow you may be suprised.
Are yer sayin the tins 'll be worth more than the contents?
Are yer sayin the tins 'll be worth more than the contents?
Yes, unless it's buscuits :eek:
John Little
06-Aug-11, 16:36
£150 billion total so far off the 100 top British companies this week.
You lot up there should really cut back on all the sofas and Ducatis you are buying!
I suppose all the brokers and ankers will still get their bonuses...
Take the buscuit tins to Antiques Roadshow you may be suprised.
Hate to burst the 'bubble'...Antique RS is quite a fake!! All set up!
£150 billion total so far off the 100 top British companies this week.
You lot up there should really cut back on all the sofas and Ducatis you are buying!
I suppose all the brokers and ankers will still get their bonuses...
Report last week stated that the UK owns over $250B of the US debt....kinda scary eh!
John Little
06-Aug-11, 18:24
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.
Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources."
John Little - if you are quoting that you really should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand...
John Little
06-Aug-11, 19:10
I see that City bankers got £14 billion bonuses last year on top of their salaries.
And last month banks took in £3 billion more in deposits than they lent out.
So the next round of bonuses are safe then.
That's nice.
John Little
06-Aug-11, 19:18
John Little - if you are quoting that you really should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand...
But I don't really wish to. I do not really go for rational selfishness, and I think that her ideas on State intervention come straight out of Social Darwinism. I would no more read her novels than I would those of Disraeli.
My own thoughts stem more from John Hobson and Leonard Hobhouse.
But I don't really wish to. I do not really go for rational selfishness, and I think that her ideas on State intervention come straight out of Social Darwinism. I would no more read her novels than I would those of Disraeli.
My own thoughts stem more from John Hobson and Leonard Hobhouse.
Yeah that makes sense...
John Little
06-Aug-11, 19:32
"Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency."
Those safeguards were put in place and there followed 50 years of unparalleled prosperity for the western world.
Then the right wing took power in the US and followed 'Neo-Liberalism' preaching the infallibility of the free market. Singing a siren song that anyone could succeed through their own efforts and hard work, they swept away all the safeguards in a deregulation process accelerated under the second President Bush.
The unfettered market did exactly as it did in the early 1920s and built a huge and inflated system of non-existent cash.
It was not the ordinary people who did it then and it was not the ordinary people, you and me, who did it last week.
It was not the ordinary people who wiped off £150 billion in our economy in the last 5 days.
It was the people who play games with money.
The way out of this is to put back the regulations on banking and trading practices that once controlled the markets and to create jobs so that taxes flow to government who must spend it on more jobs.
John Little
06-Aug-11, 19:38
Yeah that makes sense...
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she's not original. It's just Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill in a different form.
I have never thought that all people are fundamentally selfish and out for their own ends. But in the end even Utilitarianism showed the necessity of co-operative action in order to improve society.
Neo-Liberalism is just everybody out for themselves.
'I'm alright Jack' should be their motto.
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she's not original. It's just Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill in a different form.
I have never thought that all people are fundamentally selfish and out for their own ends. But in the end even Utilitarianism showed the necessity of co-operative action in order to improve society.
Neo-Liberalism is just everybody out for themselves.
'I'm alright Jack' should be their motto.
The problem with Bentham and Mill is their view do not fit with modern society and cultures - it's very pre-industrial revolution. Rands views are more fitting with modern society and its problems.
John Little
06-Aug-11, 19:45
The problem with Bentham and Mill is their view do not fit with modern society and cultures - it's very pre-industrial revolution. Rands views are more fitting with modern society and its problems.
I disagree.
For one they were not speaking in the pre-industrial period but in the white heat of the early industrial revolution when unfettered capitalism was really taking off in industry.
And secondly, if you read their stuff the forces at play were exactly the same as today. Some things are constant; there are, it seems, laws in Economics.
John Little
09-Aug-11, 09:06
"The causes of recession set out by J K Galbraith in his book, The Great Crash 1929, were as follows: bad income distribution, a business sector engaged in “corporate larceny”, a weak banking structure and an import/export imbalance.
All those factors are again in play. In the bubble of the 1920s, the top 5 per cent of earners creamed off one-third of personal income. Today, Britain is less equal, in wages, wealth and life chances, than at any time since then. Last year alone, the combined fortunes of the 1,000 richest people in Britain rose by 30 per cent to £333.5 billion."
Money makes money... The wiser you use it the more it will make. You can have your fancy cars and tv's now but don't call those that have done with-out to accumulate wealth in asset form.
I was called a Capitalist the other day because of the properties I own. I have no 42inch plasma TV and my car is only fit for a dog to sleep in.
So what is the opposite of a Capitalist? And is the person that called me one, one!
Angel...
Update from a 'Think Tank' in the US....
Keynesian economics has destroyed the middle class worldwide, and without a vibrant middle class, history shows that no society can survive!
oldmarine
18-Aug-11, 04:18
I am not in favor of Socialism.
John Little
18-Aug-11, 07:01
What is Socialism?
Socialism in theory is a bright and equal future for all of humanity worldwide. Socialism in practice (given the embarrassing reality of human nature) is the unremitting process of social engineering designed to create an equality of misery at vast expense.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.