Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Dr J
11 Jan 10 11:54
Joined:
Date Joined: 18 Oct 01
| Topic/replies: 11,712 | Blogger: Dr J's blog
One forum poster boasts about being a 'wealth creator' despite claiming an EU CAP subsidy paid for by people whose income is, on average, substantially lower than his.

Another forum poster boasts that he and his fellow bankers are 'wealth creators' despite arguing that the financial sector was 'clever' to line its own pockets while bankrupting the country.

Any suggestion that the 'wealth creators' should contribute more to society through tax, of course, is met with panicked cries: "Oh, but what if they leave the country Dr J? Who will create our wealth for us then, Dr J? Boo-hoo."

Meanwhile, in what's affectionately dubbed the 'Non-Wealth Creating Sector', everyone salivates at the prospect of teachers, nurses and council workers being made redundant. They didn't cause the mess, of course, but political parties fight amongst themselves to see who can punish them hardest.

Have we really become so brainwashed? Do we really swallow the great 'wealth creator' myth, even though years of evidence now firmly show that the only wealth they really create is their own? Must we really seek to please anyone who - however self-servingly, however dishonestly - labels themselves a 'wealth creator'? Moreover, must we continue to skew political and economic policy towards a bunch of people who, in general, care nothing for society and everything for themselves?
Pause Switch to Standard View The 'Wealth Creator' - please read on...
Show More
Loading...
Report V4 Vendetta January 19, 2010 7:15 PM GMT
evski, at least you sort of "want to be freer" but think otherwise for whatever reasons. GJ bothers me a bit because he has by his own admission relatively little faith in ** sapiens and thinks the way is through coercion because his views are better for everyone than they know themselves. This is always the problem with degrees of authoritarianism and their population with intellectuals. Brown is the same - smart chap (with a bit Aspergers) and thinks he knows best for everyone. Nasty stuff.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 7:15 PM GMT
agreed goring - evski's natural instinct shows through there. unfortunately his thinking has been corrupted by state education.
Report evski January 19, 2010 7:17 PM GMT
DonWarro 19 Jan 20:09



your not a slave? why do you have to get a licence (ask for permission) to use your own property?

I wan't aware we did. I do own property and have no recollection of this. I just thought one needed the cash.

why do yo have to pay tax on your own property, if you own it?

The tax on property is a proxy for income and pays for local services. the occupier pays not the owner, it just happens that owner occupiers make up 70% of households.

how can the government force you to do anything and over ride your free will? how can it force you pay tax on what is yours, be it earnings or anything else, if it does not control you? if you are controlled, you are a slave.

It wouldnn't be tax if it was voluntary. The government doesn't control us, laws are sometimes necessary sometimes unnecessary, but that does not mean the government owns us.
Report evski January 19, 2010 7:18 PM GMT
DonWarro 19 Jan 20:15
unfortunately his thinking has been corrupted by state education.


how do you know where I was educated?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 7:18 PM GMT
your not a slave? why do you have to get a licence (ask for permission) to use your own property?

I wan't aware we did. I do own property and have no recollection of this. I just thought one needed the cash.


so you dont have a drivers licence, tv licence. you dont need a fishing licence or any other licences i presume.
Report V4 Vendetta January 19, 2010 7:19 PM GMT
evski 19 Jan 20:11

Goring, your economic knowledge is obviously very strong, do you think it would be possible in the absence of government to raise money for an army via voluntary donations?


Well, I haven't read the context of this above, so forgive me if I'm at a tangent rather than a secant...

Yes. Those with the most to lose (or gain) would be more likely to donate and more likely to donate more. The "law of large numbers" (of which there isn't one, but it's an expression) would give a certain size. Mercenaries have existed for ever(?) an paid for by varying sizes of organisation from empire down to woman.
Report evski January 19, 2010 7:21 PM GMT

DonWarro 19 Jan 20:14
evski - you continue to say i have no economic knowledge - its because the level i am talking from is not taught in university, nor any other insitution for that matter. it is handed down through families, hence control has been maintained. im talking the very foundations of what you know as economics are built upon.


Right, your family has handed own a knowledge of economics that is greater than the collective knowledge of the worlds great economic academics. Have you heard yourself?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 7:25 PM GMT
why do yo have to pay tax on your own property, if you own it?

The tax on property is a proxy for income and pays for local services. the occupier pays not the owner, it just happens that owner occupiers make up 70% of households.


income for whom? the government. seems fair if you are leasing property for something. what about freehold? you supposedly own it but pay feee simple taxes because it is fee simple ownership. as sibaroni confirmed, as forum resident mainstream law man, that "technically" the queen owns the land "for a basis to property rights". how does it give property rights a basis lol. the queen obviously has some sort of title over the land and therefore ultimately owns it (it is not the queen though, she is just the rep). if you really owned it, you would have the same sort of title. its caalled allodial title, something else they will never teach you.

how can the government force you to do anything and over ride your free will? how can it force you pay tax on what is yours, be it earnings or anything else, if it does not control you? if you are controlled, you are a slave.

It wouldnn't be tax if it was voluntary. The government doesn't control us, laws are sometimes necessary sometimes unnecessary, but that does not mean the government owns us


if it was volutary, then it wouldnt be repression. ty for agreeing. the government doesnt control us? so if it says you must to x, x and x,whether you agree or not, or you will be in breach of y statute, you have to comply or else face their penalty no? sounds like control to me.

re where you were educated - it appears self evident to me. sorry if im wrong. to be fair most private educaation wont teach you this either, like i said, its kept in families.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 7:26 PM GMT
Right, your family has handed own a knowledge of economics that is greater than the collective knowledge of the worlds great economic academics. Have you heard yourself?

my family has been handed down nothing. i have worked hard to gain this knowledge. OTHER familes have however handed it down. for example, one family begins with R, can you guess..
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 7:26 PM GMT
Mercenaries have existed for ever(?) an paid for by varying sizes of organisation from empire down to woman.

and police aka policy offices are the mercs of government. they know long act as peace officers like they once did on these fine shores.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 7:45 PM GMT
There's acting and overacting. The government overacted.

And yet whatever they did would have been overacting to your ideology. Its just a cop-out of having to forsake some ideological purity and deal with the issues facing the real world.

This is the weakness of government, acts for itself first.

No, its acting to maintain order. Again, I understand the concept of 'order' is a bit too coercive for libertarians.


GJ: How about a real-life example?
G: Just extrapolate starting from CCCP and Cuba.


Another cop-out. This isn't like you mate. While I disagree, I respect the way you say how you feel even if you know its unpopular. So how about just trying to give a real-life example of your free market state?

GJ: So you dismiss enterprise that built communities, drove the country economically for long periods as 'surrogate dole'?
G: I'm not sure "dismiss" is the word, but yes that's what it was and yes, it did the things you said too, just in surrogacy.


If you really cannot see how much this country benefitted from coal-mining, steel, shipbuilding, docks, and can dismiss them as surrogate dole, then you're not as smart as you think, oreven as I thought you were.

I don't give a toss whether you love it - 'my' system is the free one remember. You don't have to love Big Brother with me. Besides, you admit it benefits the country above as removing it would collapse the economy (thanks to the state).

True, it isn't about loving anything. I confidently contend that this country has gained much more benefit from all those industries you dismiss as surrogate dole, than from the Big Bang and financial deregulation. Oh, and I wouldn't confuse emergency relief to my preferred long-term policy.

Sorry, which successful country has a history of full employment?

Nice bit of semantics and diversion tactics. You said every successful country had accepted the need for a level of permanent unemployment for restructuring purposes. Yet all sorts of countries, more successful than us imo, continue to this day with policies that aim towards full employment - via things like working time directive. I never said they are permanently successful in that aim, but unlike US/UK, they haven't just decided to abandon vast regions and swathes of people.

Not at all. They'd live off their increased wealth or insurance

Except for those who aren't insured, that are reliant on your laughably weak charity safety net. Or of course currently in receipt of any of the legislation you oppose - minimum wage etc. But then they're not really people in your world, are they?

The guarantees didnt work they forced more guarantees.
Yes they did, they prevented meltdown.
No they didn't - they had to be increased three fold for deposits and dreamed up for debt. They were insufficient to cope with the coercion of the debt market that caused it.


Like I said, you really don't get what meltdown would entail, do you?

GJ: The guarantees, the govt activity to stabilise the economy, are the reason bankers aren't being hanged in public.
G: Presumably the law is a little deterrent too, but I know that the population at large is almost as ignorant as your statement blaming "bankers" as if they all worked in the same business.


Those who are supposed to enforce the law would probably be first in the queue once their wages weren't paid, and their friends and neighbours had enlisted their support in banker-hanging.

GJ: So you say. How about some examples then of real world economies and societies that are better than the mixed Western economies?
G: The coercion has prevented a fully free one from existing in the same way as fully communist states (as per Marx/Lyenin)


So I'll take that as "No, I can't provide any examples"

I think it does. This is yet another reason why government shouldn't have this power. The dis-trust you're talking about. At least we share something.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If it's that government is liable to corruption then I agree and its power should be curtailed. (Classical) Liberalism doesn't "fail" to understand, it's the starting axioms that no one has the right to coerce another.

No. In your ideal world, the rich have no need to bribe politicians, because they form a defacto state. They own all the land, they control the economy. All that is then needed is some kind of legislative institution - House of Lords?

There aren't any just as your ideal doesn't exist.

What's my ideal then? Help and representation where possible for the poor, and the workers. A state that protects those who needs it, and incrementally tries to improve equality of opportunity, and access to opportunity. Nothing unrealistic there, nothing abstract. I could list a dozen real-world measures to be taken tomorrow. And there are plenty of real-world examples out there.

Gö: If they dont, new charities will be set up which dont abuse their position and people will donate to those instead. (Straight face still on).
GJ: Really? You say that with a straight face. What astounding faith in humanity you have. Who's going to expose these corrupt charities? How is the public going to find out? How is the political pressure going to be created to remove contracts from these charities? Sorry mate, this is childilke
naivety.

As for corrupt charities, don't give to ones you're not happy with and they'll die (unless some stupid one-eyed prat bails them out).

Your non-answer there to any of those blindingly obvious weaknesses speaks volumes.


And people are born with illnesses and ailments, or genetic tendencies to get illnesses. They would become either uninsurable, or the cost would rise to a degree that would make them vastly worse off under your system than the NHS. Saying they would be better off is basically a lie.

You need to argue this, not state it. I don't agree. State your case.

GJ: They also don't reflect the wider society. How many working-class barristers are there?
G: Err, on the trading floor? Not many, but lots of workiing class folk.
GJ: Or in the media? Or anything else that would require internships which can be funded by parents?
G: Minorities are over-represented on the box, ****.


That's even weaker, and even less of an answer. Whoever said minorites can't have rich parents?

You're forgetting the "poor attitude to education" amongst the poor which is a large determinant and you're forgetting that 60% of IQ variance is genetic and 20% post-birth environment - this is an experimental fact you can look up and should look up.

A great deal of which can be put down to the fact that poor people often think that education will do them little good, as opposed to learning a trade, or if you're in a ghetto, drug dealing. Because they see peers go to uni, come out with fortunes of debt and unable to take up the internships that students from richer families can. Create genuine access to opportunity, and people will take them.

Your point also fails to deal with the vast swathes of non-poor who aren't rich, who are just as unlikely to become barristers, media interns etc.

GJ: What's being krap got to do with anything, and how do you define that?
G: Being at the bottom of one of your government's tables.


Ah, so targets and league tables created by a class that has no understanding or experience at the bottom is accurate? If a kid with teachers for parents gets a C in English, is the kid with heroin addicts as parents more krap because he gets a D?

If you spend it all on fags and Sky you can't save, yes.

Lazy generalisation alert.

It would be free at the point of use because everyone would be insured.

If you genuinely mean this means everyone will be guaranteed the insurance they require, then I don't have a problem with it. But surely that would be coercion in your eyes?

No because you're insured from birth.

Again, can you clarify your saying that everyone will be given the insurance and therefore treatment they require, irrespective of age, genetic conditions or ability to pay?

See, all this stuff would be nice for an English undergrad, but it's going to be subjective descriptions of squalor, isn't it?

No not at all. Its a comprehensive documentation of the London poor. Read it if you're genuinely interested.

Well, it is flawed, isn't it? Even you have cast nasturtiums on the government a few times and the impracticality of an uncorruptible one.

Of course its flawed, life is flawed, people are flawed, systems are flawed. Western liberal democracy, post social-contract, is the best system humanity has yet mustered.
Report Dr J January 19, 2010 7:57 PM GMT
GJ: First of all, trading floors are undoubtably more meritocratic than most places.

Goring: Ooooooo! Dr J won't like that or Lamby


For the record, me and (I strongly suspect) Lampus would both be in full agreement with GJ on this issue. One of the reasons we're all attracted to Betfair markets is the opportunity to bet on a level playing field.

The reason you're getting confused, Goring, is because so many speculators, traders and other high-earners are taken on by the large stockbroking and banking firms, not because of their ability, but because of their background and their social networking contacts. This is the very enemy of social mobility and, indeed, meritocracy.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:03 PM GMT
obv the post is for goring so i will stay out other than

If you genuinely mean this means everyone will be guaranteed the insurance they require, then I don't have a problem with it. But surely that would be coercion in your eyes?

No because you're insured from birth.

Again, can you clarify your saying that everyone will be given the insurance and therefore treatment they require, irrespective of age, genetic conditions or ability to pay?


you are already insured at birth. you just dont have access to use that insurance. it is based on your future labour, and it matters not whether there is a real ability to pay on the individual's part because double entry accounting is used and therefore the imaginary "debt" created by the cost of this insurance plan is never repaid nor does it have to be. the plans are approx $1million dollars at birth anyway, of notional money, created based on your future labour, that can be deducted from as needed. because you dont control it thought, the controllers of the insurance bond instead have been trading this bond your entire life (it is packaged up with other individual's bonds), and it's value is now far higher. of course they take dividends too. of course you cant spend any of it, but your controller can. if you controlled it, you could, essentially giving you the individual a "heaven on earth" like experience (or rather heaven within commerce, because commerce is another world, existing in our heads and consequently on paper, but not tangible and no substance based) - essentially unlimited money. it is commericial enlightenment that gets you there. the future labour basis is in essence unlimited credit because no "price" (a fictional value, not real value) and be placed upon a real man of flesh and blood. if your bond value runs low - ask the treasury to boost it (it is done at the flick of a pen). if controlling your bond, the treasury administers it for you and you communicate with them directly.

to evski earlier - im wrong to say this is economics actually. it is commerce. economics sits on the commerical platform though as its foundation.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:05 PM GMT
The reason you're getting confused, Goring, is because so many speculators, traders and other high-earners are taken on by the large stockbroking and banking firms, not because of their ability, but because of their background and their social networking contacts. This is the very enemy of social mobility and, indeed, meritocracy.

at the highest levels, the reason they keep the "everyman" out, is to protect the secrets of commerce. they are for them not you. hence everyone needs educating on these matters if you wish to level the playing field. without it, no matter how hard you try, it will never be accomplished.

their trick is, to ensure that you dont know that you dont know. it stops you asking the right questions.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:06 PM GMT
Western liberal democracy, post social-contract, is the best system humanity has yet mustered.

and we suggest it can be improved upon. it is you that is being resistant to change, not us.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:11 PM GMT
and we suggest it can be improved upon. it is you that is being resistant to change, not us.

No you don't. Your plans would pull a rug from under it. You don't accept the basis of said social contract or the economic basis of the last century. You don't even appear to support the basic democratic settlement.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:14 PM GMT
perhaps you missed the insurance post which is the answer to all the things you think that our philiosophy does not solve.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:14 PM GMT
with that in mind, the rug would not be pulled, it would be replaced with a more attractive, generally better rug.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:15 PM GMT
new page. :)
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:17 PM GMT
Who are these people who create the bonds, trade them and take dividends from? Who creates the notional money? The state?
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:19 PM GMT
Moreover, how does all this deal with the mass unemployment and poverty caused by your contracting the modern economy? What happens to all the Chrysler employees you won't bail out? What happens to the people who own houses in that community, and suddenly find themselves in a value-less property in a ghost town?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:19 PM GMT
treasury on behalf of the state, yes. on behalf of the state's owners.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:20 PM GMT
communication with the treasury is only with the treasury's head. since there are only a handful of people doing it there is no issue re workload.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:21 PM GMT
Who owns the state? The voters? What if they vote to change this arrangement?
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:21 PM GMT
Who appoints these people at the Treasury?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:27 PM GMT
in fact it is a world wide system, and even the us treasury now being the centre of this part of commerce is involved with the uk treasury in this respect.

Moreover, how does all this deal with the mass unemployment and poverty caused by your contracting the modern economy? What happens to all the Chrysler employees you won't bail out? What happens to the people who own houses in that community, and suddenly find themselves in a value-less property in a ghost town?

well, whilst you are reorganising the basis of society, ie reduction of taxes for all etc, and allowing businesses to create jobs, any debts the people run up can be offset against these insurance plans. ANY debt. credit card, mortgage, all of it. look up promissory note again - out of uk jurisdiction for example, individuals can write promissory notes and they are considered money - not like in the loan process, but straight up write a note and send to treasury to monetise. within jurisdiction it is illegal, because they dont want you doing it. it being illegal does not change the fact that money is created by our promissory notes.. our promise to labour in the future. the idea of international laws and regulations and NWO that governments push for, is to stop there being anywhere were you can write your own promissory notes.

for the commerically enlightened, having to deal with the treasury etc in order to exist (because you cant live without interacting with the system because it encompasses everything) IS labour. it is a state of mind and they consider they are labouring for their money (the value of which they decide - only the man himself can decide what he is worth), no differently to others who labour in other ways.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:28 PM GMT
Who owns the state? The voters? What if they vote to change this arrangement?

the voters do not own the state and hence cannot vote to change it. the voters are SUBJECT to the state. the state is owned by independent men who do not give up their power to any third party and instead seek to obtain the power of others.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:32 PM GMT
Who appoints these people at the Treasury?

the treasury has a job to do on behalf of the state. the state, and therefore its controllers, control the treasury. re who appoints the treasury secretary (he is just a secretary! not top dog, but you do communicate with the secretary) - the owners of the state do. if you think the pm (managing director does), it is simply because he is instructed to do so by his handlers on behalf of the owners. these people pass themselves off as advisors etc. some of the people with real power have titles with the word "permanent" in them. im sure you know some of their names, personally i dont bother with that.

this is ALL already the case.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:33 PM GMT
the voters have no real say despite thinking they do - because the government is nothing more than a company - just a big monopolistic one. it is all run for the profit of owners. hence we have credit ratings etc like other companies.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:33 PM GMT
in fact it is a world wide system,

And what makes you think any other country would go for this, assuming of course you could ever get a critical mass to support it here?

well, whilst you are reorganising the basis of society, ie reduction of taxes for all etc, and allowing businesses to create jobs, any debts the people run up can be offset against these insurance plans. ANY debt. credit card, mortgage, all of it.

So I'm a 50 year-old Chrysler worker. I'm broke and already own a house whose value is collapsing. I can now borrow as much as I like. Based on what? Certainly not ability to pay, at least until I get a job which is hardly going to appear overnight. In the meantime, I need to eat. How do I pay for that? More unlimited credit? This all strikes me as a direct contradiction of your wider view about moral hazard - its actually a licence for people to be incredibly irresponsible.

And how do we import the stuff we need? Why would anyone else accept our currency? What about all those foreign bondholders who own UK assets and gilts?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:34 PM GMT
as to who trades the bonds, traders do! they dont know what they're trading - they just see a bond number and a value.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:38 PM GMT
the voters do not own the state and hence cannot vote to change it. the voters are SUBJECT to the state.

So why would they accept that?

the state is owned by independent men who do not give up their power to any third party

And who are they? And what gives them this right? Not now, in your brave new world?

if you think the pm (managing director does), it is simply because he is instructed to do so by his handlers on behalf of the owners.

No, I don't think the PM or anyone else has untramelled power. All politics, governance is built on consent, both with powerful vested interests and the wider population. Whatever system you create, it relies on people accepting it. If it isn't working to the satisfaction of the majority, they are quite capable of overthrowing it as history shows.,
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:38 PM GMT
in fact it is a world wide system,

And what makes you think any other country would go for this, assuming of course you could ever get a critical mass to support it here?


you seem to be missing what i am saying. IT IS ALREADY THE CASE. HAS BEEN SINCE NATIONAL INSURANCE WAS INTRODUCED. SOCIAL SECURITY IN USA. they dont need critical mass to support it - they tricked you all by dangling the privileges and benefits of national insurance / social security, and in ensuring all children are registered at birth. people lappeed it up and theyve been exploiting you since.

it all stems from our bankruptcy during the war - he who owns the gold pays the bills. we agreed to pay debts through future labour and this sytem was put in because we could not pay. hence brown (upon receiving instructions, although he prob didnt know what he was doing) sold the gold, so the massees could not start again if they found out like we are doing because they want to remain in control. i see it as an opportunity, that if the masses understand it, we can all use it and collectively benefit instead of just a few.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:39 PM GMT
as to who trades the bonds, traders do! they dont know what they're trading - they just see a bond number and a value.

So why would they buy these bonds when they are so obviously based on very little - especially when your free market state has run down so many potential future sources of wealth like Chrysler.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:40 PM GMT
no one was required to accept it. everyone wanted the so called "benefits and privileges" on offer, so we bit their hand off without realising what we were accepting. we encouraged each other seeing state citizenship and ni etc as a blessing and something of value, rather than something that was exploiting us like it truly is.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:41 PM GMT
So why would they buy these bonds when they are so obviously based on very little - especially when your free market state has run down so many potential future sources of wealth like Chrysler.

they dont know what its based on. they see a figure next to it - apparently it's value. they just keep getting passed from one party to another - it's a forever lasting bubble based on double entry book keeping.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:44 PM GMT
its the same in almost every country in the world. mainstream capitalism theory ensured we could be pushed into bankruptcy and require this system.
the only countries that avoided it are hanging on for dear life, with the masses there not realising the truth either though. hence the western world's conquests around the world to install central banking systems based on this system. government refers to them as the axis of evil etc etc - but basically it is because they are trying not to enslave their people. of course, their leaders are in every case enslaving/dictating to their people anyway, so they are really in no better position than we are. our system likely IS the best, it's just it's not being used as it could be for everyone's benefit.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:44 PM GMT
everyone wanted the so called "benefits and privileges" on offer,

People wanted very real, identifiable benefits, like a state pension, healthcare, unemployment benefits. And they received them. And we kept up a standard of living by expanding business (via credit and l-t investment), and increasing the spending power of the masses. They were clearly not conned, because they've been receiving those things ever since.

What I don't understand is that, if you still want to give those people things and this unlimited credit, why change the status quo which already delivers that?
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 8:47 PM GMT
the only countries that avoided it are hanging on for dear life, with the masses there not realising the truth either though.

No they're not. Even in a recession, even with mounting debts, people in the capitalist West are living a standard of life unrecognisable from the pre-WW2 world. And part of the beauty of this form of capitalism is that because we're all in it together, its in nobody's interest to completely pull the rug. Hence why China have no self-interest in calling in their debts off the US, lest they get knocked or they become worthless, or most importantly, because it stops American companies investing in their country or American consumers buying their products.
Report V4 Vendetta January 19, 2010 8:49 PM GMT
Dr J 19 Jan 20:57

For the record, me and (I strongly suspect) Lampus would both be in full agreement with GJ on this issue. [...] The reason you're getting confused, Goring, is because so many speculators, traders and other high-earners are taken on by the large stockbroking and banking firms, not because of their ability, but because of their background and their social networking contacts. This is the very enemy of social mobility and, indeed, meritocracy.

The reason I'm confused now is that you said you and the gimp agree with gj who says trading floors are more meritocratic and you finish with saying they're not. Where is Lampus to clear it up?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 8:50 PM GMT
So I'm a 50 year-old Chrysler worker. I'm broke and already own a house whose value is collapsing. I can now borrow as much as I like. Based on what? Certainly not ability to pay, at least until I get a job which is hardly going to appear overnight. In the meantime, I need to eat. How do I pay for that? More unlimited credit? This all strikes me as a direct contradiction of your wider view about moral hazard - its actually a licence for people to be incredibly irresponsible.

this is partly the reason this has not been shared with the masses - because the masses are irresponsible. education and enlightenment in these matters helps to make people more responsible. certainly worked for me. of course those in control are also irresponsible anyway. so like ive said, its a learning process - but if we spent time in the early years training people on this, the enlightenment and responsibility would already come. the fact that you could have everything you need without pressure would certainly help, and remove the need for such materialistic values that we see in society today. i would have spent the last 50 years schooling people on this rather than wasting everyone's time.

And how do we import the stuff we need? Why would anyone else accept our currency? What about all those foreign bondholders who own UK assets and gilts?


well pretty much we get to the paradise state across the world if the whole world understands it - and money is no longer required at all and the system is redundant. people help each other, care, because their is abundance. take away abundance and you create greed jealousy and envy etc. if it's just our country, we barter using goods produced and services if no one will accept our money. we should have been using our natural resources as a nation for such purposes in the interim.
Report V4 Vendetta January 19, 2010 8:54 PM GMT
golfjudge 19 Jan 19:50

I'm a minority, where's my protection from state coercion?

European Court of Human Rights. Tough sht if nobody else agrees with your definition.


I.e. none.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:02 PM GMT
People wanted very real, identifiable benefits, like a state pension, healthcare, unemployment benefits. And they received them. And we kept up a standard of living by expanding business (via credit and l-t investment), and increasing the spending power of the masses. They were clearly not conned, because they've been receiving those things ever since.

indeed. and in fact i think it was part of a greater plan - that we had to go through this stage in order to learn and move on to a better paradigm. like you've said, education cannot be accomplished overnight - and imho we have wasted the last 50 yeasr under this system which could be a precursor for using the system as i describe.

What I don't understand is that, if you still want to give those people things and this unlimited credit, why change the status quo which already delivers that?

if we dont change it the masses will continue to suffer. you seem to think the status quo already delivers for PEOPLE and it does not. with abundance, unlimited credit becomes irrelevant - people get what they need (i thought you socialists would like that - like i said, the goal of both yours and my school of thought is ultimately the same over the very long term).


golfjudge 19 Jan 21:47


the only countries that avoided it are hanging on for dear life, with the masses there not realising the truth either though.

No they're not. Even in a recession, even with mounting debts, people in the capitalist West are living a standard of life unrecognisable from the pre-WW2 world. And part of the beauty of this form of capitalism is that because we're all in it together, its in nobody's interest to completely pull the rug. Hence why China have no self-interest in calling in their debts off the US, lest they get knocked or they become worthless, or most importantly, because it stops American companies investing in their country or American consumers buying their products


of course living standards have increased - that was the beauty of the system - so in a way you're right, they werent conned (although they were because they didnt know what was happening) because they did benefit from it. of course i feel it is a little dodgy though because clearly they have decided that the end justifies teh means, ie all the wars etc are a result of this, and a lot of loss of life occurred, just so humanity could evolve in this way. now though we see those in control have been greedy over the decades and we've gone full circle where poverty is increasing again and it feels more like a con - so it seems time to me to take us to the next stage.

they should have been preparing us for his since its inception. instead it seems to me that those in control plan to reduce our numbers drastically before implementing such a system (because, like you they have no faith in humanity, whereas i do - it just takes education and more comfortable circumstances). so whilst it isn't necessarily in china's interest for example to pull the rug on usa etc, in terms of the bigger picture IT IS in the interest of those in control and therefore it WILL happen.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 9:02 PM GMT
but if we spent time in the early years training people on this, the enlightenment and responsibility would already come. the fact that you could have everything you need without pressure would certainly help, and remove the need for such materialistic values that we see in society today.

Sorry Don, I cannot see what possible real-life evidence would lead you to this conclusion. There are plenty of people in the world who want for nothing and get sent to the very best schools in the world. Does it make them less materialistic, or more responsible? Not in the least. Paris Hilton and co?

well pretty much we get to the paradise state across the world if the whole world understands it - and money is no longer required at all and the system is redundant.

But that's no more realistic than the Far Left saying "If everyone agrees to share everything, it will be paradise" Its just a fantasy. There is nothing in the history of humanity to suggest even a small part of this is plausible.

people help each other, care, because their is abundance.

Again, how do you reach that conclusion? Do those in Wall St who have more than they could possibly ever need all become caring people? No, they buy up vulture funds and fleece the world's poorest. You seem to be forgetting the negative sides of human nature.

if it's just our country, we barter using goods produced and services if no one will accept our money. we should have been using our natural resources as a nation for such purposes in the interim.

But we don't have all the natural resources we need. There are all sorts of imports required - isolationism is something that only North Korea seem to be content with. And I'm guessing you're going to say 'educate people so we can import less in future', but that's no selling point to my desparate 50 yo Chrysler worker who needs a job, food and shelter now.

I'll give you this, Don. You deserve some credit for trying to think the unthinkable. So few do it. But I assure you, philosophers have been going over this stuff for as long as we've been here. It really isn't that simple. Actually you knock universities, but you would love doing a philosophy degree.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:03 PM GMT
"they" want the world for themselves. we've produced all they need now anyway and they dont plan on using this system much longer. they will just get rid of most serfs. those that remain will be scratching around to survive and will happily work for them in return for safety and survival.




there you have it - world wide conspiracy.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 9:08 PM GMT
if we dont change it the masses will continue to suffer. you seem to think the status quo already delivers for PEOPLE and it does not.

It delivers vastly more than the previous arrangement, hence its longevity. It also delivers more than any other system in the world right now. Humanity has evolved, society has improved. And in comparison to previous eras that also saw great technological advances, the wealth has been better shared around - at least in welfare states.

we've gone full circle where poverty is increasing again and it feels more like a con - so it seems time to me to take us to the next stage.

But its not gone full circle. We're in a deep recession, they happen periodically in a capitalist system. Everyone bar Brown knows that.

like you they have no faith in humanity

I have plenty of faith in humanity. I'm just realistic about it.

so whilst it isn't necessarily in china's interest for example to pull the rug on usa etc, in terms of the bigger picture IT IS in the interest of those in control and therefore it WILL happen.

So you keep saying. Rather like the Obama ineligibilty thing, until it happens, barely anyone will believe you. I'm afraid I don't. Sorry.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:22 PM GMT
but if we spent time in the early years training people on this, the enlightenment and responsibility would already come. the fact that you could have everything you need without pressure would certainly help, and remove the need for such materialistic values that we see in society today.

Sorry Don, I cannot see what possible real-life evidence would lead you to this conclusion. There are plenty of people in the world who want for nothing and get sent to the very best schools in the world. Does it make them less materialistic, or more responsible? Not in the least. Paris Hilton and co?


all part of education. television and media is causing this materialistic nature.

well pretty much we get to the paradise state across the world if the whole world understands it - and money is no longer required at all and the system is redundant.

But that's no more realistic than the Far Left saying "If everyone agrees to share everything, it will be paradise" Its just a fantasy. There is nothing in the history of humanity to suggest even a small part of this is plausible.


indeed it is no more realistic assuming humanities attitudes cannot be changed. i just believe they can be. the far left is who those in control really are - they intend to get to this state and because they've no faith in humanity they intend to get rid of us.

the fact of the matter is, the system does work this way. certain persons at the top of the chain are creaming it off the rest of us in this manner (using our bonds and making us pay interest on national debt).

people help each other, care, because their is abundance.

Again, how do you reach that conclusion? Do those in Wall St who have more than they could possibly ever need all become caring people? No, they buy up vulture funds and fleece the world's poorest. You seem to be forgetting the negative sides of human nature.


at end stage none of this is a problem. wall street wouldnt exist, because there is no money.

what is happening is that more and more people are starting to do these things - hence it becomes harder for the rest of you to prop the system up. at some point a critical point is reached, and those that have not enlightened themselves will fall by the wayside. some like me, will help them. others will not, and will only look after themselves. regardless of whether we do it, it will happen eventually any because it is by design. so my advice is to learn!

if it's just our country, we barter using goods produced and services if no one will accept our money. we should have been using our natural resources as a nation for such purposes in the interim.

But we don't have all the natural resources we need. There are all sorts of imports required - isolationism is something that only North Korea seem to be content with. And I'm guessing you're going to say 'educate people so we can import less in future', but that's no selling point to my desparate 50 yo Chrysler worker who needs a job, food and shelter now.


again it depends on what stage we're at. at the end stage, its not even barter - we give up what excess we have, for free, and other nations do the same. in the interim, if we do not have enough, we raise some promissory notes in another jurisdiction ie create money in the jurisdiction of where we need to purchase things.

I'll give you this, Don. You deserve some credit for trying to think the unthinkable. So few do it. But I assure you, philosophers have been going over this stuff for as long as we've been here. It really isn't that simple. Actually you knock universities, but you would love doing a philosophy degree.

TY. i appreciate that.
you see, i am not out to get you :) just trying to offer other options and ideas for thought, and highlight what i see as flaws in your plan just like you do to me. of course a lot of what are considered as common truths but are lies ( ie common understanding of national insurance) often hinders me, hence i feel the need to elaborate on that.

ultimately, whether you like it or not, we are already enroute to this end game. and it certainly isnt my doing, but this system already exists for individuals to use right now, and it is being used. all the pieces on the board are already in place as far as "they" are concerned, because they do not care about educating the masses. they have exploited it nearly as far as it can go and it is now near breaking point (next few years imho) where they will begin "the harvest" ie pull the rug out from everyone. a few staged disasters etc will give them nature as a scape goat. (on the subject of nature, this is also controlled by collective subconsicous of a few dominant minds whether they realise it or not - a whole other discussion :)

university is not for me. ive studied a lot of philiosophy myself and read a numebr of great works with a lot more on my list. i prefer to rely on my own free thought rather than coercion toward an idea that may or may not be true by an enterprise that ultimately is controlled by they same people controlling everything else. they control the publishing houses, the media, everything. at some level the philosophical argument re the issues we discussed here has already taken place by those in control. of course they are blinded by self interest themselves and therefore the winning argument was not correct imho - because they have concluded to get rid of us. the only way things can be halted is through breaking through the levels of the matrix, and commerce and law is the first stage. the second is physical. "they" have not achieved this themselves and would be powerless against it.

btw , you would do well to read my latest update on unenforceable credit agreements - because this together with that is the first level of the matrix to break through on the way to freedom - the film matrix being a metaphor for it all. the second level is collective consciousness and nature of the universe etc which i will not go into today. tired now lol.

fun huh :)
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:23 PM GMT
But its not gone full circle. We're in a deep recession, they happen periodically in a capitalist system. Everyone bar Brown knows that.

every recession is a controlled contraction, like you alluded too earlier.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:26 PM GMT
So you keep saying. Rather like the Obama ineligibilty thing, until it happens, barely anyone will believe you. I'm afraid I don't. Sorry.

that;s cool - i dont expect you to. it'snot an easy pill to swallow, and i dont expect others to go by my word - they need to find out for themselves through research. i expect we have certainly stimulated thought in some here though.

because people wont research , and arent open to the possibilty that what i say is true, this is why i announced the obama thing etc, to serve as proof and garner credibilty so you may all take me a little more seriously. give it time :)
Report V4 Vendetta January 19, 2010 9:29 PM GMT
golfjudge 19 Jan 20:45

And yet whatever they did would have been overacting to your ideology. Its just a cop-out of having to forsake some ideological purity and deal with the issues facing the real world.


Not true as Dr J and I have discussed a few times (mostly because he either forgot my stance or didn't understand it). I supported the inital acts for the reasons you cite - they had been made necessary by the coercion to that point. This, as you put it, could be described as "forsaking ideological purity" for the real world. I would say that it's just the special case of the theory starting from a half-half coercion state rather than the equilibrium state, but that's semantics.

Dr J believes the bailouts weren't right or necessary to protect the vulnerable, btw - he'll no doubt chime in to set you straight on that tomorrow.



No, its acting to maintain order. Again, I understand the concept of 'order' is a bit too coercive for libertarians.

Eh, you said they had to act or they'd be chucked out. I can see who that's about.



GJ: How about a real-life example?
G: Just extrapolate starting from CCCP and Cuba.

Another cop-out. This isn't like you mate. While I disagree, I respect the way you say how you feel even if you know its unpopular. So how about just trying to give a real-life example of your free market state?


If you really cannot see how much this country benefitted from coal-mining, steel, shipbuilding, docks, and can dismiss them as surrogate dole, then you're not as smart as you think, oreven as I thought you were.

And if you can't see that the two aren't mutually exclusive, you're in danger of swapping the corporal's badge with Lampus. Employ more people instead of what's needed (yx) rather than laying some off to do other things and paying them dole in the meanwhile.


I don't give a toss whether you love it - 'my' system is the free one remember. You don't have to love Big Brother with me. Besides, you admit it benefits the country above as removing it would collapse the economy (thanks to the state).

True, it isn't about loving anything. I confidently contend that this country has gained much more benefit from all those industries you dismiss as surrogate dole, than from the Big Bang and financial deregulation. Oh, and I wouldn't confuse emergency relief to my preferred long-term policy.

I agree.


Sorry, which successful country has a history of full employment?

Nice bit of semantics and diversion tactics. You said every successful country had accepted the need for a level of permanent unemployment for restructuring purposes. Yet all sorts of countries, more successful than us imo, continue to this day with policies that aim towards full employment - via things like working time directive. I never said they are permanently successful in that aim, but unlike US/UK, they haven't just decided to abandon vast regions and swathes of people.

Err, "working time directive" sounds like a piece of the unelected EUSSR Commission's coercion. Are you suggesting a country in Europe has "full employment" or even as any meaningful aim?


Except for those who aren't insured, that are reliant on your laughably weak charity safety net.

There wouldn't be any, we've covered that.

Or of course currently in receipt of any of the legislation you oppose - minimum wage etc. But then they're not really people in your world, are they?

The gardener and my barber - all guaranteed (just as they are now, but without the waste)


G -The guarantees didnt work they forced more guarantees.
Gj -Yes they did, they prevented meltdown.
G -No they didn't - they had to be increased three fold for deposits and dreamed up for debt. They were insufficient to cope with the coercion of the debt market that caused it.

Like I said, you really don't get what meltdown would entail, do you?

I think I do. Dr J doesn't and he was around in the 30s. However, this paragraph is about whether the guarantees work and they didn't as they had to be augmented.



Those who are supposed to enforce the law would probably be first in the queue once their wages weren't paid, and their friends and neighbours had enlisted their support in banker-hanging.

I think you're overegging the pudding.


So I'll take that as "No, I can't provide any examples"

No, I can't provide any examples.



No. In your ideal world, the rich have no need to bribe politicians, because they form a defacto state. They own all the land, they control the economy. All that is then needed is some kind of legislative institution - House of Lords?

I think you're confusing me with some neo-con.



What's my ideal then? Help and representation where possible for the poor, and the workers. A state that protects those who needs it, and incrementally tries to improve equality of opportunity, and access to opportunity. Nothing unrealistic there, nothing abstract. I could list a dozen real-world measures to be taken tomorrow. And there are plenty of real-world examples out there.

I can list measures, but the state doesn't exist the same as yours doesn't (whatever it is).



Your non-answer there to any of those blindingly obvious weaknesses speaks volumes.

Unlike you who has bailed out of that line without any argument.


That's even weaker, and even less of an answer. Whoever said minorites can't have rich parents?

So all the minorities in the media are rich, are they? How do you know this?

A great deal of which can be put down to the fact that poor people often think that education will do them little good, as opposed to learning a trade, or if you're in a ghetto, drug dealing. Because they see peers go to uni, come out with fortunes of debt and unable to take up the internships that students from richer families can. Create genuine access to opportunity, and people will take them.

See, the attitude has been there longer than the endebtedness. This is reverse-reasoning.


Your point also fails to deal with the vast swathes of non-poor who aren't rich, who are just as unlikely to become barristers, media interns etc.

I am getting a bit lost with all this non-poor, rich, and the disjunction to be honest. You'd think there'd be a better way to talk about these "vast swathes" as they're so vast, but there isn't. Mostly because the bad-luck cases aren't vast. I thought the privileged were vast and crowding everyone out. It seems everyone is vast.


Ah, so targets and league tables created by a class that has no understanding or experience at the bottom is accurate?

No idea, but wherever you are on it, it's mostly your doing not everyone else's.


If a kid with teachers for parents gets a C in English, is the kid with heroin addicts as parents more krap because he gets a D?


If you spend it all on fags and Sky you can't save, yes.

Gj: Lazy generalisation alert.


Yes, but you know what I mean. It's possible to save out of 27k. I saved out of less than what that would leave me with after housing etc at University. It's discipline.


If you genuinely mean this means everyone will be guaranteed the insurance they require, then I don't have a problem with it. But surely that would be coercion in your eyes?

Yes, but it's a stage 1 that doesn't pre-judge or require stage 2, that's why I put it forward. It's practical and should have wider support.


Again, can you clarify your saying that everyone will be given the insurance and therefore treatment they require, irrespective of age, genetic conditions or ability to pay?

Stage 1 would be means tested, yes.



No not at all. Its a comprehensive documentation of the London poor. Read it if you're genuinely interested.

I might, yes. Does it have any numbers in it?


Of course its flawed, life is flawed, people are flawed, systems are flawed. Western liberal democracy, post social-contract, is the best system humanity has yet mustered.

Yes, bring on the improvement.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:31 PM GMT
Dr J believes the bailouts weren't right or necessary to protect the vulnerable, btw - he'll no doubt chime in to set you straight on that tomorrow.

but he was all for them at the time.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:43 PM GMT
to conclude all that other stuff i was talking about, all the superficial politics and economics we see and discuss as a population, is merely a charade hiding the truth.

:)
Report evski January 19, 2010 9:47 PM GMT
GJ, I am in awe of your persistence. Your like a young Serena williams hitting a ball against a wall in the baren streets of South central LA.

well pretty much we get to the paradise state across the world if the whole world understands it - and money is no longer required at all and the system is redundant. people help each other, care, because their is abundance. take away abundance and you create greed jealousy and envy etc. if it's just our country, we barter using goods produced and services if no one will accept our money. we should have been using our natural resources as a nation for such purposes in the interim.

ffs, I can't believe this. We are going to engage in a global barter economy? So whe I buy something from asia I have to go there to work?

Since when was this a world of abundance? The whole reason we have a subject called economics is the fact that our resources are incredibly limited. Your post only confirms that your "system" can never work and has not been thought through in any detail.

Sometimes I wonder if your just taking the p1ss all the time.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 9:51 PM GMT
all part of education. television and media is causing this materialistic nature.

Don, you can't seriously decry all of that and then talk about freedom as an ideal, or improving human nature. People choose to follow all that stuff, because that's part of their nature. Without infringing on their liberty, how are you going to change that? Of course we could have advert-free TV like the BBC...

the far left is who those in control really are - they intend to get to this state and because they've no faith in humanity they intend to get rid of us.

Which is both a conspiracy theory and seriously misunderstanding who the Far Left are, and what they believe in. I assure you they are not in power. They'd do well to fill a pub.

at end stage none of this is a problem. wall street wouldnt exist, because there is no money.

Wall Street is merely an example of where people have an abundance of everything they could possibly need, but that doesn't make them more charitable, or altruistic. Quite the reverse.

in the interim, if we do not have enough, we raise some promissory notes in another jurisdiction ie create money in the jurisdiction of where we need to purchase things.

Why would any other country accept that? They will only accept payment that they deem valuable.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:57 PM GMT
Don, you can't seriously decry all of that and then talk about freedom as an ideal, or improving human nature. People choose to follow all that stuff, because that's part of their nature. Without infringing on their liberty, how are you going to change that? Of course we could have advert-free TV like the BBC...

if people are consicously aware the subliminals do not control them. im not saying subliminals are intentionally planted (although they are by advertising etc somethings), they are a part and parcel of the world and are present in names, words and all images. when certain people come into the lime light for whatever reason (superficial reason), the name always has a subliminal attached. i dont seek to overrider freewill - i seek to encourage it. there is no freewill ultimately whilst people are mentally controlled by subliminals without their knowledge, but once they become aware it can no longer control them
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 9:59 PM GMT
ffs, I can't believe this. We are going to engage in a global barter economy? So whe I buy something from asia I have to go there to work?

nope. there are already global bartering systems in place ready to be used from whichever locality you are in.

Since when was this a world of abundance? The whole reason we have a subject called economics is the fact that our resources are incredibly limited. Your post only confirms that your "system" can never work and has not been thought through in any detail.

since when was there abundance?? there always has been. it just doesnt feel that way whilst some hoard for their own benefit or greedy nature. it is illusion, and the system of economics being there for us all to see maintains the illusion. like i said before, this system of commerce is not my system - it is THE system, that is already in place.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:00 PM GMT
for the record - gj's patience in listening and responding to a counter opinion is appreciated. of couse he gets frustrated with me sometimes, why wouldnt he. but really it is no different from my persective to my own patience and persistence with him.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:04 PM GMT
this was a response to my point about raising promissory notes in other jurisdictions.[

i]Why would any other country accept that? They will only accept payment that they deem valuable.[/i]

they already DO accept it. just like uk does (we dont accept private promissory notes, only from secured party creditors, which is the status you need to have to do this. i discussed this status on unenforceable credit agreements thread on financials, just yesterday) - to not accept it brings down their system. this is ALL already the case. it is money in their currency and therefore in the eyes of whomever you are buying from it therefore has value, since they value their own currency. as a debtor in commerce, which everyone is unless they change their status accordingly, you cannot access your bond and you cannot use your own promissory notes. a secured party creditor however can.
Report evski January 19, 2010 10:06 PM GMT
Don, if i write you some promissory notes can I buy your car. I will give you the equivalent of 150% of its sterling value?
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:11 PM GMT
your promissory notes are worthless since i dont have the power to monetize them, the treasury/banks do, and they wont because you are of debtor status andd therefore it is against their rules. once i achieve my secured party creditor status, believe me i will certainly splash some dough, since it will be meaningless and come from my bottomless pit.
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 10:17 PM GMT
GJ: No, its acting to maintain order. Again, I understand the concept of 'order' is a bit too coercive for libertarians.
G: Eh, you said they had to act or they'd be chucked out. I can see who that's about.


Its about a lot more than simply being chucked out, its about maintaining democratic liberal capitalism. You say I'm over-egging the pudding, I reckon you're not even close to understanding how bad it could get. If the cash machines had run out, there would have been mass bank runs. If all the banks had been allowed to fail, the fallout would have been totally unprecedented. My strong view is that we'd have seen an authoritarian dictatorship in short time.

Employ more people instead of what's needed (yx) rather than laying some off to do other things and paying them dole in the meanwhile.

Of course finance and industry aren't exclusive, but as I've pointed out before, the UK finance system has rarely had an interest in long-term domestic investment. There's richer pickings elsewhere, and little or no govt involvement to direct it towards the regions.

People weren't layed off to do other things. Their local economies were destroyed, taking good businesses with them, and people told to get on their bike. So we see a brain drain, welfare dependency and massive population imbalance. Cue housing market distortion, social problems etc. Moreover, the assault on industry was politically motivated, as can be seen from the Tories attempts to thwart any alternative - such as miners in S Wales buying their own pits.

Err, "working time directive" sounds like a piece of the unelected EUSSR Commission's coercion. Are you suggesting a country in Europe has "full employment" or even as any meaningful aim?

Same subject. Apart from UK and US, all these Euro countries have faced the same restructuring problems. So they pursue the course that maintains as much work as possible. They don't abandon regions, and where an industry dies, investment is sent in to regenerate. The working time directive ensures most people work less hours, enabling the work to go round better, and family life enhanced. It is a wholly different attitude towards political economy to ours, and it bears no resemblance to communism either.

GJ: No. In your ideal world, the rich have no need to bribe politicians, because they form a defacto state. They own all the land, they control the economy. All that is then needed is some kind of legislative institution - House of Lords?
G: I think you're confusing me with some neo-con.


Well, granted you've rather rowed back from your ideological leanings on health, but still your desire to remove your coercion, and your refusal to accept the social contract, would all lead to a further concentration of wealth at the top. The reversal of those trends are what modern political economy has been about it. Only the libertarians and the commies don't accept it.

So all the minorities in the media are rich, are they? How do you know this?

I never said all, though I'm sure its most. My point was about only rich kids being able to take internships, which is what nearly all the best careers entail.

See, the attitude has been there longer than the endebtedness. This is reverse-reasoning.

Wrong. If you look back a couple of generations, you will find plenty of working-class people taking night courses and going to university. Earlier generations of Labour MPs were typical of this. If you go back to the 70s even, before Thatcherism, you will find working-class industrial communities with socially conservative values and self-help commonplace. It was Thatcherism, consumerism, the money for nothing culture that she inspired that destroyed that.

I am getting a bit lost with all this non-poor, rich, and the disjunction to be honest. You'd think there'd be a better way to talk about these "vast swathes" as they're so vast

Try keeping up then, its not hard. The life-chances of virtually all people in the UK, rich, middle or poor can be largely predicted by their postcode at birth. That owes much to the way league tables
have turned comprehensive education into a state-sponsored private system where kids choice of school depend on parental wealth. Its so bad that I actually lean more towards the Tory voucher scheme (though they nicked the key redistributive element from the Lib Dems).

It's possible to save out of 27k.

Where did that figure come from? On that money, an earner would be comfortably inside the top half and therefore not particularly in need. Although they're hardly rolling in it, and given the pressures created by such education and housing policies, it will disappear pretty quick. Let alone if they need to buy a travelcard.

Stage 1 would be means tested, yes.

At what level, roughly?

G: No not at all. Its a comprehensive documentation of the London poor. Read it if you're genuinely interested.
GJ: I might, yes. Does it have any numbers in it?


Some. Its seen as the first comprehensive attempt to map society. So people are put into seven categories. Worth a read.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:25 PM GMT
according to larrys thread , 27k is not much more, and often less, than a single mother on benefits would receive. so given that if it was earnings it places you in the top half, benefit claimants have no complaints then if benefits are reduced?

the answer as you well know is no. its the cost of living that is the problem , and as per somewhere near the beginning of thread, your big gov policies will only increase this cost of living since they stifle free enterprise, job creation and competition for workers. instead of creating an environment where such competition can occur, you prefer to get workers into unions so they can pressure business into paying them more. this solves nothing - businesses will pass these costs on to consumers (which includes your workers) and the cost of living remains high. so again, intervention, whether good willed or not, causes the problems, and cannot possibly in the long run solve them. free markets can occur with in job/worker markets if you allow it, but of course big gov never will
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:31 PM GMT
sry - got a bit confused in my haste lol, feel free to ignore that last post with regard to this thread, although it does stand as a truth imo as a separate issue
Report golfjudge January 19, 2010 10:35 PM GMT
according to larrys thread , 27k is not much more, and often less, than a single mother on benefits would receive.

I haven't trawled through that, but it isn't that simple if there are kids to feed. Moreover, if housing/ct benefit is included, then its a meaningless statement as the benefit claimant doesn't receive it.

its the cost of living that is the problem , and as per somewhere near the beginning of thread, your big gov policies will only increase this cost of living since they stifle free enterprise, job creation and competition for workers

See above post to Goring about Thatcherism. That was her mentality, big govt did f-all to regenerate. It did nothing to save those industries. Look at the results. Vast areas of previously industrial, highly populated areas are half empty. There has been a massive brain-drain. I could rent a flat in Hull, where I used to live, for virtually nothing. Same as you can buy a house for peanuts in Detroit. Instead, everyone flocks to the hub of the SE, encouraging massive property speculation, high cost of living, unsustainable debt etc.

The market hasn't worked. It hasn't encouraged re-investment in those areas. Why would someone with capital take long-term risks when they can invest in land in the SE and make a tidy profit, or invest overseas?

The UK example is clear proof imo that the market doesn't do what the market fundamentalists claim. To the point where the market fundamentalists are now saying "Lets just abandon Doncaster/Stoke/Sheffield" (or wherever). What an appalling waste of land, resources, human talent and what a betrayal of those areas glorious histories, and of all the industrious people that contributed towards our land.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:37 PM GMT
re its not that simple with kids to feed - plenty of single parents EARNING only 27k i would wager, and less too.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:40 PM GMT
the constant arguments within politics between the left and the right imo, and the fact that no agreed solution is ever found, any changes only make something else worse, or situations worse for another group, to me proves that big government cannot possibly work. hence i say limited government is the way. the only common denominator that we have seen, be it labour or tory, is that ultimately government grows, and takes more out of the economy (and thus away from the people) as it does so. i dont feel there is a solution to be found within regulation.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
in short - big government cannot help someone without hindering someone else or causing detriment to someone else. by definition to operate it has to take things from one to give to another, and thus it never reaches an ideal solution.
Report evski January 19, 2010 10:54 PM GMT

DonWarro 19 Jan 23:44
in short - big government cannot help someone without hindering someone else or causing detriment to someone else


Diminishing marginal utility of money says spreading it about is going to increase total utility. It works like this:

Goring pays lots of tax. He saves lots of money cos he wants a yacht in 5 years. Instead of buying an 80ft yacht he must settle for a 60ft yacht because of the tax. This tax pays for a few poor people to be cured of cancer, and a few single mums can feed their children.

or goring gets his 80ft yacht and the cancer patients die and the children get ill from malnutrition and have no home.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 10:58 PM GMT
lol evski, you think i dont know that. the point is that whilst that theory looks good, it is based upon your flawed assumption that the high rates of taxation we see today are required in order to support the needy. they are not. and im not even talking about the bond/national insurance issue here.

ive no problem with helping the people that need the help. the tax rates as they are though are not needed. they are a product of big government continuing spend beyond its means, thus having to service debt beyond its means. income tax pays national debt INTEREST ONLY.

please go read the grace commission from 1984. if you think its any different here than it is in the states you are sorely mistaken im afraid.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 11:00 PM GMT
why you think there are so many other forms of tax nowadays, visibile and stealth, licences included. they are used to pay for things. obv it all goes into a pot anyway, but the grace commission proved that income tax receipts did not cover national debt interest.. and this was 25years ago, who knows how bad it is now.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 11:01 PM GMT
got to pay for big government some how huh so ramp the taxes up! thats what has happened.
Report evski January 19, 2010 11:04 PM GMT
inflation deflates the debt. And that isn't true, we have had a fiscal surplus since 1984 ( i think, can't be bothered to find out when but I'm fairly sure).

I don't understand hwat your saying, do you think your telling me something new when you say government activity is paid for by taxes?

Indirect taxes (stealth taxes in your emotive language) are too high and I think most people would agree that government spending should be cut in some areas.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 11:08 PM GMT
i am saying that government activity is paid for by all the stealth taxes. the bulk of tax , ie income tax, doesnt come into the equation because it is already swalloed by interest.

britain as the worst deficit in the west according to the imf. and i dont care what fudged figures they show you suggesting a fiscal surplus - if it were truly the case they wouldnt need to keep raising taxes would they. everything is smoke and mirrors. one set of books for the public eye, another set tucked away in the top draw.

go read the report i suggested. if you're not going to any discussion of the subject is pointless.
Report DonWarro January 19, 2010 11:16 PM GMT
inflation deflates the debt in one sense, but it inflates it given our purchasing power is eroded and we are currently reliant on imports.
Report evski January 19, 2010 11:32 PM GMT
I'm not disputing that we are in the shytt now, that is irrefutable.

So we don't hijact this fre again I'm off to bed. Tennis bets on for now and getting up for a bit of the muzza match in the morn.

Gutten NAcht.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 1:41 AM GMT
sorry to go off topic again

for gj, re what we discussed earlier and how i ay the system really works - it appears to me the only way to remove that part of the system of exploitation is to return to the gold standard. so basically the options are everyone needs to understand all this, which like you say is a huge challenge and likely impossible, or we must return to the gold standard. there are no other options i dont think, practical and theorietical.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 1:47 AM GMT
and i think the gold standard is where they are taking us - since now they have taken all the substance from the people by giving them worthless fiat money in its place evreyone will be screwed.this current system has served its purpose in terms of consolidating and taking all our wealth ie this is how they pull the rug from under us as everyone has to start again.
Report V4 Vendetta January 20, 2010 5:28 AM GMT
evski 20 Jan 00:04

inflation deflates the debt. And that isn't true, we have had a fiscal surplus since 1984 ( i think, can't be bothered to find out when but I'm fairly sure).



Evski, was this a typo? Supposed to be "haven't had a surplus"? We had a year or two in 86/7ish, possibly three, but then Lawson blew it by cutting tax too quickly compared to spending.
Report V4 Vendetta January 20, 2010 5:29 AM GMT
Gold isn't perfect, but I agree EO. Governments get rid of it because it stops them manupulating the money supply for political gain. It's the balance we need against government.
Report V4 Vendetta January 20, 2010 6:07 AM GMT
golfjudge 19 Jan 23:17

Its about a lot more than simply being chucked out, its about maintaining democratic liberal capitalism. You say I'm over-egging the pudding, I reckon you're not even close to understanding how bad it could get.


Like I said, I supported the early rounds - Dr J thinks it was unnecessary as it only saved rich bankers, but the government caused this with its bubble making. Only Ron Paul and a handful other (proper) liberals actually called this beforehand. Government was the problem.

My strong view is that we'd have seen an authoritarian dictatorship in short time.


That's Gordon! Opt our of organ harvesting, CCTV only the state has access to. Search without reasonable suspicion. Random stops without 'reasonable suspicion' and he hasn't even been presented to the electorate yet.


Of course finance and industry aren't exclusive, but as I've pointed out before, the UK finance system has rarely had an interest in long-term domestic investment. There's richer pickings elsewhere, and little or no govt involvement to direct it towards the regions.

Well, this is a new point so I'll put this one to bed first: Yes, they did good, yes there was surrogate dole. Now, the new point on investment. If there are richer pickings elsewhere, that's what should be targetted.


People weren't layed off to do other things. Their local economies were destroyed, taking good businesses with them, and people told to get on their bike. So we see a brain drain, welfare dependency and massive population imbalance. Cue housing market distortion, social problems etc. Moreover, the assault on industry was politically motivated, as can be seen from the Tories attempts to thwart any alternative - such as miners in S Wales buying their own pits.

They did do other things by and large - call centres etc. Unemployment came back down to a large extent, but was masked by the removal of the veil of surrogacy.


G: Err, "working time directive" sounds like a piece of the unelected EUSSR Commission's coercion. Are you suggesting a country in Europe has "full employment" or even as any meaningful aim?

Your reply to this was basically "yes" although you didn't name one. Germany? Massive structural unemployment. Same for most of them.




GJ: No. In your ideal world, the rich have no need to bribe politicians, because they form a defacto state. They own all the land, they control the economy. All that is then needed is some kind of legislative institution - House of Lords?
G: I think you're confusing me with some neo-con.

Well, granted you've rather rowed back from your ideological leanings on health, but still your desire to remove your coercion, and your refusal to accept the social contract, would all lead to a further concentration of wealth at the top.

I haven't rowed back anywhere, you just assumed I wanted to end coercion overnight at any cost. I'm pragmatic so it would be done gradually but firmly and monotonically.


The reversal of those trends are what modern political economy has been about it. Only the libertarians and the commies don't accept it.

The bubblists have tried this, but look where it got them.


I never said all, though I'm sure its most. My point was about only rich kids being able to take internships, which is what nearly all the best careers entail.

Why are you sure? Because if it weren't the case it would be an issue? You have a point about the internships, but it's small. We have a few in each year who then join the graduate programme with a headstart, but it's not enough to offset their inherent talent (or lack of). The first graduate year is enough to overtake them for the upper quartile. I'm speaking for my business (from years of experience) as that's all I know. I suspect you don't have a similar amount of experience in another business?



Wrong. If you look back a couple of generations, you will find plenty of working-class people taking night courses and going to university. Earlier generations of Labour MPs were typical of this. If you go back to the 70s even, before Thatcherism, you will find working-class industrial communities with socially conservative values and self-help commonplace. It was Thatcherism, consumerism, the money for nothing culture that she inspired that destroyed that.

I thought it was the student debt - when did that start? After Maggie I believe.


G: I am getting a bit lost with all this non-poor, rich, and the disjunction to be honest. You'd think there'd be a better way to talk about these "vast swathes" as they're so vast

Try keeping up then, its not hard.

It is, because you're choosing which sector of the population is "vast" according to each strand of your argument and they're inconsistent. You've divided the cake into 5 halves in order to have your group overwhelmed by a majority each time.

The life-chances of virtually all people in the UK, rich, middle or poor can be largely predicted by their postcode at birth.

Statistics and source please? It's important because you rely strongly on this in most of your general thrust. (Of course, so can cigarette smoking and obesity, but that's their fault too).


[...]I actually lean more towards the Tory voucher scheme (though they nicked the key redistributive element from the Lib Dems).

Yes, well the "Liberal" Democrats seem to have a schizophrenia between classical liberalism and coercive liberalism, don't they? It's likely everyone can choose some of their policies.




Where did that figure come from? On that money, an earner would be comfortably inside the top half and therefore not particularly in need.

Well, I don't think half of the population has a good savings level so the median level was a choice to illustrate that. Of course, the savings are poor because of the state coercion of the debt markets.



G:Stage 1 would be means tested, yes.
At what level, roughly?


Well, we're on details now, but I'm sure it would be a lower trigger than you'd want. I would want people to pay for their health before they spend money on subscription tele. or fags (of any sort).



Some. Its seen as the first comprehensive attempt to map society. So people are put into seven categories. Worth a read.


Did you give me the full reference already? An Amazon link even better.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 8:24 AM GMT
Göring 20 Jan 06:29


Gold isn't perfect, but I agree EO.


i think you mean DW :)
Report Dr J January 20, 2010 9:56 AM GMT
Like I said, I supported the early rounds - Dr J thinks it was unnecessary

It's very flattering the way you keep quoting me on this topic, Goring.

:)

My primary point is that uber-capitalists like you should oppose the bail-out on ideological grounds. You can't suddenly start believing in massive state intervention because you happen to be the beneficiary.

My take on the bail-out itself is that far too much of the money seems to have gone directly into bankers' pockets. Bonuses are as high as before and the government seems as duped as ever by lines about regulation/interference being bad for business. In my opinion, far too much money was poured into the system on the spurious grounds of 'restoring confidence' and far too little has been done to stop a similar occurrence happening again.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 10:29 AM GMT
i actually agree with dr j - apart from the bit where he says gov is duped into thinking regulation is a bad thing. it is, if it isnt minimal.
Report golfjudge January 20, 2010 2:55 PM GMT
Dr J thinks it was unnecessary as it only saved rich bankers, but the government caused this with its bubble making.

You seem absolutely determined to try and engineer some split between myself and Dr J, which seems a bit desparate really. So we partially disagree over the bank bailout.

So what? I'm here having a bizarre argument here with two people who are basically united around one proposition - a hatred of big government, and I would add a deep distrust of democracy plus a hatred of society. But what divides you two? What do you think of Don's worldwide barter scheme? Or this unlimited credit from birth thing? Do you too think trying to go back to the gold standard is a good idea? What about all this stuff about worldwide far-left conspiracies?

Don't worry, I won't laugh at you for disagreeing with one another. But seeing as you seem to think its important everyone sings from the same hymn sheet...

GJ: My strong view is that we'd have seen an authoritarian dictatorship in short time.
G: That's Gordon! Opt our of organ harvesting, CCTV only the state has access to. Search without reasonable suspicion. Random stops without 'reasonable suspicion' and he hasn't even been presented to the electorate yet.


All you're doing here is confirming how beyond reality the society-hating Right has become. I also oppose the assaults on civil liberties. But if you think that makes us an authoritarian dictatorship then you've lost contact with reality. I am talking about real dictatorship - e.g USSR. If we went down that route, your wealth would be seized (none of this 41% tax = coercion stuff), and you'd be sent to some re-education camp. You certainly would not be having this open, free exchange of views on the internet. Be very careful what sort of world you dream for - people like myself are moderates by comparison.

GJ: Of course finance and industry aren't exclusive, but as I've pointed out before, the UK finance system has rarely had an interest in long-term domestic investment. There's richer pickings elsewhere, and little or no govt involvement to direct it towards the regions.
G: Well, this is a new point so I'll put this one to bed first: Yes, they did good, yes there was surrogate dole. Now, the new point on investment. If there are richer pickings elsewhere, that's what should be targetted.


And how does any of that help the people who live in the regions? How does that stop the ever greater population imbalance that our City-dominated economy has created? It doesn't does it? If you want that, just be honest and say it. Don't pretend that you really have those people's interests at heart, if only they'd embark on your abstract adventure and forget about the next 20 years.

They did do other things by and large - call centres etc.

Many of which were public sector.

Your reply to this was basically "yes" although you didn't name one. Germany? Massive structural unemployment. Same for most of them.

Germany inherited 15M people and a bankrupt economy. It has miniscule personal debt compared to us. It hasn't abandoned its regions. It has strong wage-bargaining structures and less penal anti-union laws. It tries to share the work around. It would never allow hedge funds and US conglomerates to asset strip its companies. It has a wholly different political economy agenda to the US and UK, and it isn't communism.

GJ: The reversal of those trends are what modern political economy has been about it. Only the libertarians and the commies don't accept it.
G: The bubblists have tried this, but look where it got them.


A vastly better economy and society than what came before. Peace and prosperity that was unprecedented in the previous world where working class people were born to live in total squalor until their turn at being cannon fodder came along.

Why are you sure? Because if it weren't the case it would be an issue? You have a point about the internships, but it's small. We have a few in each year who then join the graduate programme with a headstart, but it's not enough to offset their inherent talent (or lack of).

But I've not attacked trading floors - I accept that business is meritocratic. I mentioned law and the media - I certainly know about the latter, and believe me, its all about internships.

I thought it was the student debt - when did that start? After Maggie I believe.

Student debt might affect adults' choices, but it certainly doesn't engrain the sort of 'anti-education' culture that you mention. That goes way back. If anything, the trend amongst the upper wc/lower mc nowadays is to be determined to send their kids to uni despite the fact they never went. Part of the reason why there are so many people at uni who aren't cut out for it.

It is, because you're choosing which sector of the population is "vast" according to each strand of your argument and they're inconsistent. You've divided the cake into 5 halves in order to have your group overwhelmed by a majority each time.

Its not one sector, or five sectors. It is a trend across the whole population, save the exceptional who manage to escape their birthright. And the vast swathes are the majority in any cohort that aren't exceptional.

Statistics and source please?

The leading authority on this subject
http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/

Of course, the savings are poor because of the state coercion of the debt markets.

No, the savings are poor because their work has been gradually casualised, real wages have barely rrisen in decades, and because the cost of living is so high. The last point, largely because of a distorted housing market exacerbated by a population imbalance, the freedom of the rich to accumulate property and the gradual erosion of useful social subsidies towards things like public transport. (Hence why under Ken's GLC a bus fare cost 10p, now it costs £2 - have median wages risen twenty-fold in those 25 years).

Well, we're on details now, but I'm sure it would be a lower trigger than you'd want.

That's not really an answer. Who gets state-backed health insurance in Goring's paradise please?

Did you give me the full reference already? An Amazon link even better.

I'm not sure where to buy online, it may be restricted to universities. A few links if you're interested.

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/3273/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Booth
http://www.heilsarmeemuseum-basel.ch/E/william_booth_books.php
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22William+Booth%22
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 3:01 PM GMT
saying we have a hatred for society is unfair and jumping to conclusions. its that sort of thing that governments assume through their failure or unwillingness to understand the point of view of another that gets people classed as domestic terrorists unnecessarily. i am not dangerous to anyone in any way.

re the barter system etc - goring and i kind of agreed (i think) further up this thread following yesterday's conversation that the best option probably is the gold standard despite that that would ruin the masses and therefore some sort of contingency would be needed in advance before moving across... ideally.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 3:05 PM GMT
All you're doing here is confirming how beyond reality the society-hating Right has become. I also oppose the assaults on civil liberties. But if you think that makes us an authoritarian dictatorship then you've lost contact with reality. I am talking about real dictatorship - e.g USSR. If we went down that route, your wealth would be seized (none of this 41% tax = coercion stuff), and you'd be sent to some re-education camp. You certainly would not be having this open, free exchange of views on the internet. Be very careful what sort of world you dream for - people like myself are moderates by comparison.

more marginalisation. reality for one is not reality for another. there is of course an equal possiblity that either party is incorrect. it seems to show up in debate though that that is you.

your methods leave doors wide open for us to slide into EUSSR dictatorship, or eurasia disctatorship (ty 1984). in which case, given that we like freedom, yes we would be sent to a camp, which is what we are seeking to avoid. what you seem to miss, is that by leaving the door open it becomes out of your control and you may find yourself sat in a camp with us.

re what world do i dream of. the same as everyone else. in that sense no need to discuss the inner workings of commerce and how it currently works and how it shuold works. the dream is for everyone to be happy, everyone to have what they want, no poverty crime etc etc... the same damn thing as you.
Report V4 Vendetta January 20, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
Hatred of society, gj? Not me.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
you consider yourself a moderate but that is your opinion im afraid. another perspective such as mine may take a different view. that said, i believe you have good intentions, but it is you that needs to be careful what you wish for in terms of policy.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 3:06 PM GMT
me either goring as above.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 3:07 PM GMT
one's reality depends on what he knows and sees. one may have no idea or even be able to speculate about what the other knows, nor may one have any idea how much he does not know that he doe not know.
Report golfjudge January 20, 2010 3:22 PM GMT
Don, you've said many, many times that you reject the constraints of society.

Both of you clearly reject the social contract that has bound Britain and Western Europe for the past century.
Report DonWarro January 20, 2010 3:36 PM GMT
reject. not hate.
Report V4 Vendetta January 20, 2010 3:52 PM GMT
golfjudge 20 Jan 15:55

You seem absolutely determined to try and engineer some split between myself and Dr J, which seems a bit desparate really. So we partially disagree over the bank bailout. So what?


Well, it's a bit of fun as you well know, but it also serves to point out that it's not a left-right matter. Many were unhappy with the bailouts and didn't think the end was nigh as you state.


And how does any of that help the people who live in the regions?

By freeing them so other better businesses can flourish which couldn't happen otherwise without negating the gains of the economic change. It's a long term win with some short-term pain.

How does that stop the ever greater population imbalance that our City-dominated economy has created? It doesn't does it? If you want that, just be honest and say it. Don't pretend that you really have those people's interests at heart, if only they'd embark on your abstract adventure and forget about the next 20 years.

You've gone off on one here with all this city-based stuff.


G: They did do other things by and large - call centres etc.
Gj:Many of which were public sector.


Well that's another mistake by the state then.

Germany [...] has miniscule personal debt compared to us. [...]

Firstly, the debt is largely socialised in Germany. They do not have "miniscule debt" in recent times. Figures before the crunch: 2007, UK, 43.6%, Deutschland 64.9%. They didn't "have" to socialise debt in the crunch because it had already happened. But you're not getting of the hook with a smokescreen here: So you don't like Germany, but which EU country has full employment please? (Lamby has £2 at 1.01 that there ain't any and I'd back off if I were you).

A vastly better economy and society than what came before.

Geez, I'd hate to see a bad economy. You sound like Gordon in PMQs.

But I've not attacked trading floors - I accept that business is meritocratic.

Cool, so there should be big tax cuts then as it's all merit.


Student debt might affect adults' choices, but it certainly doesn't engrain the sort of 'anti-education' culture that you mention.

Oh hello, wait a minute..! so we now have the above, but we also have you saying:

A great deal of which can be put down to the fact that poor people often think that education will do them little good, as opposed to learning a trade, or if you're in a ghetto, drug dealing. Because they see peers go to uni, come out with fortunes of debt

Youve disappeared up your own behind in an attempt to remain consistent. Lets have some acknowledgement of personal responsibility for ones situation, because change cant happen without the will and the will needs acknowledgement of the problem.

If anything, the trend amongst the upper wc/lower mc nowadays is to be determined to send their kids to uni despite the fact they never went. Part of the reason why there are so many people at uni who aren't cut out for it.

Didnt they have to get grades though? Youre saying theyre not academic types, or what?

Its not one sector, or five sectors. It is a trend across the whole population, save the exceptional who manage to escape their birthright. And the vast swathes are the majority in any cohort that aren't exceptional.

Eh up, the swathes are back. Just be clear, are there swathes of poor people underachieving?


G:Statistics and source please?

Gj The leading authority on this subject http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/


Well, well leave the subjective description, but Im happy to look at them. So which page shows me
Report golfjudge January 20, 2010 4:52 PM GMT
Many were unhappy with the bailouts and didn't think the end was nigh as you state.

Usually because they don't get the scale of it, and thanks to the bailout, felt the recession was something that primarily affected other people. Empty those cash machines and just wait and see. Of course I can never win that argument, because nobody anywhere near power is likely to abandon reality for abstact ideology.

GJ: And how does any of that help the people who live in the regions?
G: By freeing them so other better businesses can flourish which couldn't happen otherwise without negating the gains of the economic change. It's a long term win with some short-term pain.


And yet the Tories had at least a decade to see the fruits of their labour in this respect. They never came. The de-industrialised parts of the US, even more so. Nor will it ever happen under your system, because there will always be richer pickings elsewhere, which you'll champion. Like investing in a country with a communist govt that fixes its currency and keeps its population in effective slavery.

You say it yourself - long term win with some short-term pain. Only those with the short-term pain never come back, and the long term win, if there is any, goes to someone else.

You've gone off on one here with all this city-based stuff.

So deal with it then. I presume you're all in favour of the latest asset-stripping of British history at Cadburys? How does the behaviour of hedge funds here, 80% of which are based in the Caymans, serve the interests of those workers and that region? The same people, not some future generation who won't remember this discussion.

G: They did do other things by and large - call centres etc.
Gj:Many of which were public sector.
G: Well that's another mistake by the state then.


So they didn't really do other things then did they? The victims of Thatcherism had to wait for New Labour, and their half-hearted sticking plasters.

Firstly, the debt is largely socialised in Germany. They do not have "miniscule debt" in recent times.

Socialised debt is a different subject and anyway its less than ours now. Quoting figures before the crunch, i.e. at the height of our unsustainable boom, is disingenuous.

In my confident view, government debt is a whole lot better than massive personal debt.

So you don't like Germany, but which EU country has full employment please?

I never said they did! I said they have policies aimed towards achieving it, in response to your claim that all countries had agreed with the Chicago/Austrian school that unemployment was a necessary condition for structural reform. In any case, if the Germans have less than 15M unemployed they're doing well because that's the number of people they inherited along with a bankrupt economy.

I notice you've avoided all the stuff about wage-bargaining, anti-union laws, state investment banks, regeneration, regional policy etc.

Geez, I'd hate to see a bad economy. You sound like Gordon in PMQs.

So are you disputing that the modern economy is richer than the ones before the social contract you refuse to accept?

Oh hello, wait a minute..! so we now have the above, but we also have you saying:

Fair point, bang to rights. Student debt is one factor, but it isn't the only one. An anti-education mentality predates student debt.

Lets have some acknowledgement of personal responsibility for ones situatio

Of course its part of any story, just as birthright, postcode and opportunity are. I'm with Warren Buffett here. If you really think your wealth is down to your own brilliance, try making it in Bangladesh.

Didnt they have to get grades though? Youre saying theyre not academic types, or what?

We both have a degree, so I'll assume you agree with me that there are plenty of people with some sort of degree that aren't particularly suited to academia.

Eh up, the swathes are back. Just be clear, are there swathes of poor people underachieving?

Why restrict it to the poor. There are plenty of people under-achieving in all cohorts, partly because we have a rather anti-meritocratic society and education system.

[i]So which page shows me
Report potlis January 20, 2010 5:16 PM GMT
I presume you're all in favour of the latest asset-stripping of British history at Cadburys? How does the behaviour of hedge funds here, 80% of which are based in the Caymans, serve the interests of those workers and that region? The same people, not some future generation who won't remember this discussion.

I think you will find its the British taxpayer who are funding the take over of their own history (Cadburys) as RBS our state owned bank will be supplying a large chunk of the required fund to Kraft, oh the irony.
Report golfjudge January 20, 2010 6:50 PM GMT
You won't get any argument from me on that score, Potlis. Its despicable, and a total betrayal from our govt, as usual cheered on by their soulmates in the Tory party.

Lets not understate the pivotal role of hedge funds though, buying up the shares in anticipation of the hostile bid and therefore holding the balance of power.
Report V4 Vendetta January 20, 2010 6:53 PM GMT
Yeah, they beat you guys to it again. If you'd put a tenner in each, there's enough lefties let it carry on making that oily muck they call chocolate.
Report long&short January 20, 2010 8:58 PM GMT
Goring

Sorry I missed your response in a rather long thread.

Purchase power parity dollars

United Kingdom 1800
France Germany 1950
USA 3600

Total, men, women.
France: 80.7,77.1,84.1
Blighty: 79.4, 76.5, 82.1
Deutschland: 79.4, 76.5, 82.1
US: 78.2, 75.6, 80.8


Oooo dear, correlations and causation. Life expectancy is largely genetic though, so its not perfect however you have a point worth investigating but the greater socialism in Germany doesnt appear to be helping them.

Genetics does not come into it. You cant be saying that the variation between these systems and populations is due to a global genetic difference.

So the Germans spend 10% more and get nothing. The Americans spend 100% more and get less in this measure, but a lot of that is research that they do and give to everyone else.

The reason the Germans and French spend 10% more and get nothing for it is that they both have insurance based schemes and all the cash is lost in transaction costs and cross charging between companies, providers and departments. Its far more bureaucratic
than the NHS system. Again the NHS comes out on top.

Now, using Nationmaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/correlations/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-pe... we see that theres a 78% correlation between health spend and number of Fax machines. Basically, the bigger economies spend more which isnt surprising because a lot of the cost is salaries where theyre higher.

The point about Fax machines is really specious. The figures are OECD figures for OECD countries so they are like for like comparisons.

I think the US is likely to be the artefact and not consistent with the rest of the world for the salary and research reasons. Also, as weve noted they dont guarantee the bottom of the pile so they pull down the average.

My explaination is that the NHS is hugely efficient by comparison. We spend less for drugs with purchasing power, spare parts like heart valves we get for 1K instead of 5K. The list of our advantages just goes on and on. The huge US R&D spend is not included in the numbers, if it was it would just look even worse for the US system.

You seem to be suggesting that a better comparison would be to disregard the uninsured in the US life expectancy number and compare the total spend to the insured population only who you guess would be living very long indeed...perhaps.

US health care is excellent if you have access to it. No disputing that but ignoring the uninsured would not really be comparing systems because we do insure our whole population.

However, the biggest point is the choice of measurement. As I said, life expectancy is largely genetic (also, not everyone gets ill!) and the big complaints about the NHS are waiting times, are they not? You dont wait in the States.

Again the idea that we are genetically distinct from US citizens is you must agree not really sensible if that is really what you meant. I think you must mean something else and I have missed it. Agreed in the UK you wait but every one gets treated. In the US you dont wait you/some just remain ill and in pain and never get treatment! Then die early.

The point about not every one getting ill is very salient. It is exactly because we have a huge pooled risk system that the whole thing is such good value for money.

L&S Its incredible value. Efficiency is not the goal although we are obviously doing rather well. It is quality in health care,

G If that were the case wed spend everything on health, wouldnt we?


Andrew Carnegie was the richest(ish) man in the world when he died from what today would be cured with a pill costing .50p. I think he would have paid his whole fortune to live longer. Just a guess of course. Id spend my net worth to live an extra ten years, wouldnt you? I wouldnt say nah
Report long&short January 20, 2010 9:00 PM GMT
Yes its great RBS our tax payer owned bank helps US company stuff UK taxpayer. Lovely.
Report noddys ryde January 21, 2010 11:07 AM GMT
long-perhaps they should give our money to some unreliable low life who will never repay it instead ?
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com