Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 181 total)
  • Harriet Harman might not be that bad after all.
  • Junkyard
    Free Member

    I’ll say it again, all that labour would have done is to increase the tax burden on the likes of myself to pay for the over bloated and socially skewed ideals that they have and i and others like me said ‘No thanks, you had your chance, time for someone else’

    Well as long as you are better off SI who cares about the poor and lets hope you get more of your money whilst poor people are denied housing, unemployment soars …lets just hope IT types can afford dandy horses eh
    Given your lack of a social conscious I suspect this will indeed make you happy. 😥

    fwiw i grew up on a ‘sink’ estate, as were all my family, but wasn’t given enough on a plate to make me think that i needed to better myself.

    How many others escaped this estate? …were they all just lazy? Next you will be telling me that all Etonian educated children of millionairres are talented rather than lucky. Do you really think that hard work alone counts for the differing success rates in these socio economic groups?

    si-wilson
    Free Member

    LOL, junkyard, i never said we should not look after others, read my posts. Am i a IT type, dandy horse owner? no, i work hard, have 2 jobs, dont claim any benefits, not much disposable income etc so hardly looking out for number one.

    I agrre we should always help the needy, but it is time that more of the social fabric (of all classes) of this country took responsibilty for their own lives, that is all.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Si

    Yes I would like fair for all and our society is not – and is getting worse. Tory policy will increase the inequality of opportunity

    Our pension and benefit levels are amongst the lowest in Europe, our healthcare and schools are underfunded. At the same time some people take billions out of the economy to fulfil their own greed.

    We reamina a low tax low spending economy. I would like to spend a bit more to have better services and reduce poverty

    Just where are the millions out of work supposed to get jobs from? Where are these jobs? In jepardy whereever that is?

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Stoner
    Free Member

    Si – Id give up arguing with the likes of TJ and Junkyard.

    The left are fuming at their political impotence and irrelevance right now. Tribal ideological hatred of all that is not “labour” spills out into the patronising comments and generalisations you get above.

    si-wilson
    Free Member

    Do you really think that hard work alone counts for the differing success rates in these socio economic groups?

    of course not, now you are being daft to prove a point. I wasn’t pointing the finger at one social class, neh mind we just go around in circles 🙂

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Stoner – no matter how many times you are told you like to forget that

    I AM NOT A LABOUR SUPPORTER

    ?as for your ill thought out generalisations – nice. I do like the attacking of the people ‘cos you can find no flaw in their argument

    ditch_jockey
    Free Member

    Well guess what, not EVERYONE can afford to buy the things they want, especially those people who don’t have the money, but Labour made everyone feel that it was a god given right for people to demand what they wanted and get into debt so that soceity was ‘fair’ and now we are suffering for it.

    I’m no fan of the Labour party – haven’t been since John Smith died – but trying to pin the turn to a more acquisitive society on the Labour government post 1997 is simply ignoring the realities of British social history. If you read the Borrie Report, published in 1994, you’ll find they were already talking about the need to give people “a hand up, not a hand out” in the light of the creation of a dependency culture on Britain’s sink estates.

    The irony of the current situation is that people seem to have forgotten that nuLabour’s chief critics in 1997 were the on the left of the Labour party, and their concern was that Tony Blair and his supporters were too accepting of the ‘new economic realities’ in the aftermath of Thatcherite reforms. The reality is your not ‘suffering’ because Labour increased spending to the NHS, your suffering because they failed to closely regulate the financial markets that, up until the big bust, were like the goose that laid the golden egg. Again, it’s now a matter of historical record that Margaret Thatcher’s vision for the British economy was that it would become a financial powerhouse, based around the city of London. In that respect, she succeeded, and Blair and Brown were careful to pamper their inheritance, right up until it went ‘pop‘.

    Oh, and just for the record, I grew up on a council housing estate as well. Nearly all the people who lived around us were employed, and they were socially conservative people who had considerable civic pride. If you want to understand the reason why that same area is now littered with people subsisting on benefits, with degrading housing stock and massive social problems, you’ll need to look a little further back than changes to the benefit system over the last 10 years or so.

    ditch_jockey
    Free Member

    “We are in the grip of the post-modern vagabond. We have expensively constructed slums full of layabouts and sluts whose progeny are two-legged beasts. We cannot cure this by family, religion and self-help. So we will have to rely on oppression”

    I have the above quote tucked away in a file of snippets from the 80s an 90s when I was studying sociology. It’s from Bruce Anderson, who was an advisor to the Conservative Government – perhaps it helps to explain why we have so many people amongst the poor in Britain who have a deeply ingrained belief they are a useless waste of space. Every week, they get living proof of that when they go to collect their benefit cheque.

    If you want these people to be productive members of society, you’re going to have to do a lot more that simply point them at a job vacancy. You need to spend long hours rebuilding their self-belief, self-confidence and, ultimately, their view of the world and their place in it. Failing that, you can cut their benefits and then complain to your resident’s association when they rob your house to make ends meet. Of course, it won’t help that government cuts mean that there will be fewer police employed, so you’ll have to live with the fact that crime will rise and you’re less likely to see anyone from the police station arrive for hours to deal with a minor crime like your house being trashed.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Si – Id give up arguing with the likes of TJ and Junkyard.

    Good advice. Especially as they’re talking sense, not shite based on reading some crap bit of ‘journalism’ in the right-wing press…

    IMO the NHS is over bloated and far too expensive and needs streamlining

    Opinion based on what evidence? Granted there’s always room for improvement, but statements like that just prove TJ right, actually.

    The left are fuming at their political impotence and irrelevance right now.

    Real left-wing ideology will become far more popular in the next few years, as it becomes obvious that the only real way to sort out the abject mess the Tories have created is a good old fashioned bit of Socialism (Elfinism, ideally).People in Britain need to wake up and realise this isn’t the global economic superpower it once was, and stop trying to play silly games. 6th largest by GDP, 19th by income per capita. How shit is that?? 3rd biggest spender on guns and bombs. Ridiculous. The distribution of wealth in Britain is unfair and doesn’t reflect the efforts of the majority of people. Time to put a stop to that. Scrap the **** monarchy, as it serves little purpose other than to perpetuate the myth of social class, re-nationalise all those industries which used to benefit the state as a whole, not just shareholders, and even up the playing field a bit.

    The real fear of the Tories, is that one day the Oiks may get too powerful, hence the regular attempts by Tory governments to put pressure on the ‘lower classes’, keep them in their place. They really don’t want to give up their fragile grip on power.

    What people like Stoner are most scared of, is that people like me might end up living next door to them… 😉

    si-wilson
    Free Member

    Opinion based on what evidence? Granted there’s always room for improvement, but statements like that just prove TJ right, actually.

    Of course, sorry about that….

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    No it’s ok. Just try to provide evidence to back up your wild claims, or else you’ll look a bit silly. 😉

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    IMO the NHS is over bloated and far too expensive and needs streamlining, what’s the issue with that?

    Oh – I missed that one. Simply wrong in fact. The NHS is cheap. we pay much less for our healthcare than other countries #and for this we get a high quality comprehensive service. Management costs are low.

    What knowledge do you have that means you can say this? Ever worked in teh NHS? yes there is waste but it is a tiny amount.

    si-wilson
    Free Member

    Well, i have been proved wrong, so I’ll sit back and watch the country implode and suffer 😉

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Tribal ideological hatred of all that is not “labour” spills out into the patronising comments and generalisations you get above

    I liked that it is a generalisation, patronising and ideological based…was it intentionally exactly what is was meant to oppose? .. a work of genius or just lucky ?
    I am not a natural labour supporter either FWIW I am left wing FFS 😉
    I can understand why you think everyone having a relatively even share of scare resources/income/wealth is inherently unfair though and suggesting we share evenly is against human nature ..it is what I teach my kids. They now take stuff from the weak and neeedy ..some bleeding heart do gooders call this bullying I say the weaker kids should MTFU and just work harder like my little boys Reggie and Ronnie

    Am i a IT type, dandy horse owner?

    Wow if Only I could have worked this out from your log on name 😯

    si-wilson
    Free Member

    Wow if Only I could have worked this out from your log on name

    Do you know what else i do for a living?

    nickf
    Free Member

    Si, you’re an IT type, are you not?

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Do you know what else i do for a living?

    Cymbal manufacturer?
    New Age Healer?
    Rubber grommet tester?
    Rice farmer?

    Ooh I don’t know I give up…

    big_n_daft
    Free Member

    How many others escaped this estate? …were they all just lazy? Next you will be telling me that all Etonian educated children of millionairres are talented rather than lucky. Do you really think that hard work alone counts for the differing success rates in these socio economic groups?

    I agree they are lucky, they are brought up with an expectation and the support to enable them to do well within the construct of our education system. Poverty of ambition is real poverty in modern Britain. A country with no jobs yet expands to take on at it’s peak 1 million working eastern europeans and still had 600,000 vacancies advertised.

    The real fear of the Tories, is that one day the Oiks may get too powerful, hence the regular attempts by Tory governments to put pressure on the ‘lower classes’, keep them in their place.

    was Norman Tebbit’s dad an oik?

    IMO the NHS is over bloated and far too expensive and needs streamlining, what’s the issue with that?

    Oh – I missed that one. Simply wrong in fact. The NHS is cheap. we pay much less for our healthcare than other countries #and for this we get a high quality comprehensive service. Management costs are low.

    I in part agree, the NHS is compatively cheap

    I would debate the “high quality comprehensive service” bit, I think there are examples of very good practice and lots of very poor. North Staffordshire hospital anyone?

    The NHS is obviously a very large complex organisation but I would argue that anyone that argues that it is the best it can be hasn’t experienced it enough from the patients perspective

    re-nationalise all those industries which used to benefit the state as a whole,

    that will be because they were really efficient and made loads of money and were as cheap as chips then………I think not

    But some of the current models have failed due to poor regulation and political tampering

    gas/ electric is a failed market, needs the number of players increasing

    water, is essentially a environmental tax, privatisation was done to take the massive investment costs required off the governments balance sheet. compulsory metering should be introduced across the board coupled with proper social tariffs

    telecoms, plenty of competition, market working

    post office; very good arguments for investing in what actually works, but then my regular postie is great, universal service should be maintained. Management and unions should have heads knocked together and be told to grow up

    etc etc

    Markie
    Free Member

    Perhaps its that I prefer a society that is fair for all, where there is equality of opportunity, where there are good public services. Where pensioners don’t live in poverty, where there are not sink estates full of people with no hope, with low crime, with good standard of living for all.

    Sounds great. It’ll cost money, of course. I believe the Coalition plans to rebuild/restructure the economy will give the UK the economic growth necessary to provide the government with sufficient income to support these aims.

    Article loosely in line with the above:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/27/george-osborne-antidote-to-beveridge

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Markie – or we could simply increase tax a very small amount like say Germany or the Netherlands

    That article is a load of pish that has time and time again been proven to be false. For the private sector to create jobs at the rate Osbourne predicts is unprecedented. It simply will not happen. Instead what most economists believe will happen is that demand will fall and there will be a decrease in jobs in the private sector along with a decrease in tax revenues. Double dip recession anyone? An extra million on the dole queues in a year

    Markie
    Free Member

    Instead what most economists believe will happen is that demand will fall and there will be a decrease in jobs in the private sector along with a decrease in tax revenues. Double dip recession anyone? An extra million on the dole queues in a year

    From what I’ve seen, economists are pretty mixed in their support. As for the double-dip, fears of that are receding, thankfully. Unemployment is currently somewhere around 2.45 million, I can’t recall seeing any forecasts above 3million, and sincerely hope that towards 3.4 is not where we’re headed.

    On the tax front, I’d always thought the UK and Germany were broadly in line with one another, but have no recollection of why I think that – and that ‘understanding’ will be pre-recession and associated growth plans too.

    Brief aside, I didn’t mean for my ‘sounds great’ to appear at all sarky, As regards those ideals (and probably others), I’d see our disagreement as one of means, not ends.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Markie -0 the cuts will directly put half a million out of employment and another half million will go from the private sector as a result of drop in demand directly or indirectly. That is whjat most economists believe.

    Germany taxes small amount more than the UK – then you pay for some of your healthcare on top of taxation not out of it. a good few % of gdp more if you compare like with like

    big_n_daft
    Free Member

    which one is correct?

    or we could simply increase tax a very small amount like say Germany or the Netherlands

    or

    Germany taxes small amount more than the UK – then you pay for some of your healthcare on top of taxation not out of it. a good few % of gdp more if you compare like with like

    ?

    Markie
    Free Member

    Hey TJ. Are the 500,000 public sector jobs you’re referring to the ones highlighted in the ‘leaked photo’ Danny Alexander thing? I had understood that that covered all public sector jobs that would be lost over the next 4/5 years, including those through retirement and natural turnover, as well as ‘Coalition plans’ redundancies. I can’t recall having seen private sector forecasts – given the amount of stats around at the moment that may be wood for trees, though.

    ditch_jockey
    Free Member

    gas/ electric is a failed market, needs the number of players increasing

    actually, at least as far as Scotland is concerned, electricity generation capability far exceeds demand and, at the time of privatisation, Scottish Power were forced into a pricing structure that kept prices in Scotland artificially high so as to make the southern electricity sell-off more appealing to investors. If they’d left well alone in Scotland, electricity generation would have been a net income for the treasury.

    I believe I’m right in saying that the Post Office used to be a net income as well – it’s only been losing money hand over fist since it was privatised?

    Railways is a bit more complex – clearly a long way from ever being a net income, but I wonder if all the folks in the south of England would be happy to wind back the clock and keep paying for a coherent functioning rail service?

    As for water – meter away in England, as long as they keep their hands off Scottish Water!

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    si_progressivebikes – Member

    I’ll say it again, all that labour would have done is to increase the tax burden on the likes of myself to pay for the over bloated and socially skewed ideals that they have

    .
    The tax burden did indeed rise under New Labour – in 2009 (in the midst of an international banking crises) it reached 38.4% of GDP.

    However, the Tories have raised the UK tax burden even higher than that.

    In 1982/83 after the Tories had been in power for almost a whole term (and there was no international banking crises) it hit 38.9% of GDP……the highest ever in history.

    The Tories are not the party of low-taxation. Their economic policies which inevitably lead to millions more unemployed, guarantees that. They simply shift the tax burden away from the rich and onto the poor.
    .

    si_progressivebikes – Member

    One other thing, if the tories wanted more than one term in power what would be the worst thing they could do, create mass unemployment and generally ruin the country? That would work well eh when it comes to voting next time?

    .
    Well on the face of it, you appear to be making an excellent point.

    However, you are ignoring the Tories unique trump card. Which like a magic wand, they can wave around and it will instantly solve that little problem.

    The trump card is of course TINA……There Is No Alternative.

    Thatcher discovered the awesome power of TINA. After all, how else do you think she managed to win the 1983 general election even though she had more than doubled unemployment, increased public spending, and increased the tax burden to new historical levels ?

    As you quite rightly point out, it would make no sense.

    The British people got shafted because they believed the lie “There Is No Alternative”……… well some did at anyway.

    Today the same lie, with help from their media baron chums, is being repeated. And they will probably get away with it again, not least, because the Labour Party is too spineless and too scared to take on the likes of the Daily Mail and News International, and say there is actually an alternative.

    The Tories have always been fabulously successful in creating myths. Who would have thought back in 2008 in the days of the Credit Crunch, as we witnessed the global devastation caused by unregulated free-market financial institutions, that two years later the Tories would manage to convince a sizeable minority of the electorate, that the mess Britain is in today has nothing at all to do with greedy incompetent bankers eh ?

    Even I didn’t see that coming.

    trailmonkey
    Full Member

    The Tories have always been fabulously successful in creating myths…………………………….

    the Tories would[have] manage[d] to convince a sizeable minority of the electorate, that the mess Britain is in today has nothing at all to do with greedy incompetent bankers

    What is really disturbing is the readiness with which pepole are venting their hatred and anger and apportioning blame towards those on benefits, after it must be said, constant prompting by the govt and their press. I hear it every day at work, “dole scum” seems to be the stock phrase for someone out of work. Sad thing is, these are people not far above minimum wage. They’re just too full of hate and lies to realise that they’re the ones being shafted.

    benkitcher
    Free Member

    I’ve just copied and pasted a passage from a small rant I had at someone on this very subject t’other day.

    “The public sector, although vital, is an inefficiency (does not add to wealth, it simply facilitates it) and its cost must be less than that of the aggregated output (i.e. exports) minus aggregated inputs (imports). Western Europe increased per capita productivity in the early 19th century, which developed the wealth gap between east/west. The productivity per capita ratio stood at about 7:1 at the beginning of the 20th century, but has dropped to around 3.5:1 as efficient working practices have been adopted in the east, and inefficient behaviour has taken hold in the west. THE ONLY WAY we can begin to prosper again as a country, is for everyone to work towards increasing national output. We’ve rested on laurels (and north sea oil) for too long, and the rest of the world has caught up; playtime is over.”

    I’m sick of hearing the same old commie shit being spouted by TJ and the likes. It comes right back to Union attitudes; I speak with factory workers and they’re still trying to decrease their personal productivity, so they get more overtime hours and become wealthier in the short term. But the company is failing to prosper, losing contracts and laying people off. But that is ‘the Man’s’ fault, not theirs.

    I’ve heard say that ‘the best public sector workers will jump ship before the cuts’ and I sincerely hope they do. They can be subsequently employed in useful, productive roles which will contribute to the country’s wealth, and in turn facilitate resumed growth in both the private and public sectors. Anyone who doesn’t get that is a **** moron, and I hope they do not work in a position where their views will lead to further destruction of our country’s health and wealth.

    [/rant over]

    P.S. TJ, Junkyard et al.

    I appreciate your sentiment, a fairer share for all is a noble ideal. But anyone who thinks that by speading the ‘fat’ of the rich down through society would enable the entire population to live like lords is clearly burying their head in the sand. Belt tightening and hard graft (industrial revolution) got us where we are (reduced poverty, better health), is getting the far east into a much better position more recently (again, increased health, reduced poverty), but sitting back now is only going to harm us all.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Where on earth do you get that stuff in italics from. Try telling that to Germany. They have a state sector similar size to ours and seem fairly prosperous.

    There is plenty of wealth to go around if a small group with teh power did not take an enormous share.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    The public sector, although vital, is an inefficiency (does not add to wealth, it simply facilitates it)

    Yes industry does not require well educated healthy individuals with public health facilties and roads to get them to work. Remove all this and honestly wealth would not be affected. Good point.

    I appreciate your sentiment, a fairer share for all is a noble ideal. But anyone who thinks that by speading the ‘fat’ of the rich down through society would enable the entire population to live like lords is clearly burying their head in the sand.

    of course they would not but no one would die from poverty [dirty water, no food, lack of health care etc] that is the point of sharing it around. Hard graft wont really help them will it ?

    Anyone who doesn’t get that is a **** moron

    Bit arrogant bit of b0ll0cks really as you need to include a couple of nobel winning economists who may be many things but moron is probably not one of them.
    out of interest do you blame the private sector bankers and the market for the current worldwide economic situation or just an inefficient public sector?

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    of course they would not but no one would die from poverty [dirty water, no food, lack of health care etc] that is the point of sharing it around

    Worked well in Russia, didn’t it. Oh, hang on….

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    I’m sick of hearing the same old commie shit being spouted by TJ and the likes.

    That’s the way your hardcore commie works benkitcher…….wears you down and saps your vital energy.

    I first became aware of this international Communist plot during a particularly strenuous bout of physical lovemaking. A profound sense of fatigue overwhelmed me, followed by a feeling of emptiness. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of life essence.

    I then recalled I had previously been reading several of TJs posts. The anxiety this caused had effected the delicate balance of my precious bodily fluids – without my knowledge.

    I can assure you benkitcher, it has not recurred. But that’s how your hardcore commie works……….by interfering with your precious bodily fluids. Without your knowledge.

    Don’t put up with it benkitcher.

    And don’t deny a woman your essence.

    luked2
    Free Member

    Belt tightening and hard graft (industrial revolution) got us where we are

    Industrial revolution. Didn’t the money for that come from the wealth produced by the slave trade?

    benkitcher
    Free Member

    Where on earth do you get that stuff in italics from.

    Review of the Cobb Douglas function

    As Written by Paul Douglas himself in 1976. The Cobb-Douglas function was first presented in 1928 in their seminal paper “A theory of production” and has gained universal acceptance as a firm or aggregate measure of productivity since. Have a look at Google Scholar and see how many results you get for Cobb Douglas. The paper above gives an excellent overview of the continental productivity growth and proffers some explanation as to why.

    Significant expenditure in public services is an effect of prosperity, not a cause, and we are not prosperous enough to afford that luxury currently.

    There is plenty of wealth to go around if a small group with teh power did not take an enormous share.

    So, so, moronic. Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept; it enables prosperity and mobility to people at all levels of an organisation. Its success however has lead to such behemoth institutions, the guys on the bottom rungs can only speculate wildly about what the men at the top do and intend to do and so ridiculous, unsubstantiable suspicion grows.

    Opening your eyes and learning will lead to all this making more sense, and you sounding like less of a fool.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept

    Ha ha! I’ve read some bollocks on here, but that is right up there with the very hairiest, sweatiest, greasiest and smelliest! 😆

    Capitalism is ultimately about profit. Anything else is merely a diluted version.

    Worked well in Russia, didn’t it. Oh, hang on….

    I really wish I could put money on the likelihood of Flashy coming up with shite like this, whenever there’s any discussion of economics on here. I’d be a fair few quid up by now.

    The answer lies somewhere between a rock and a hard place. Elements of Capitalism, but tempered by Socialist ideology. The idea that a nation cannot prosper with any notion of Socialist ideology shaping the state and economy is simply ignorant and deluded.

    PJM1974
    Free Member

    New Labour.

    🙁

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    So, so, moronic. Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept; it enables prosperity and mobility to people at all levels of an organisation.

    this is pish of the highest type. Of all the stupid things I have read on here that takes the biscuit.

    Capitalism is about concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. The trickle down effect is widely discredited. As for socal mobility – it is activly discouraged by a pure capitalist model. Fortunatly we have a mixed model

    Having a quick glance at the The Cobb-Douglas function which I have never heard before it is widely discredited and analysed as having flaws and it appears to say nothing about he size of the welfare state we can afford.

    When such a small % of the country controls such a large % of teh wealth a small amount of redistribution can lead to major increases in living standards for the poor

    The top 1% of the population control 21% of the wealth the top 10% 50% of the wealth.

    PJM1974
    Free Member

    So, so, moronic. Capitalism is actually quite philanthropic in its concept; it enables prosperity and mobility to people at all levels of an organisation.

    And in next week’s edition of Singletrackworld, we explain how to nail jelly to the ceiling.

    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    Tell me, TJ, is there anything in your mud hut made by any brand considered as “capitalist”? I assume so. Or do you do all your shopping at some ethnic-tofu-knitting commune powered by fermented mung beans?

    benkitcher
    Free Member

    Yes industry does not require well educated healthy individuals with public health facilties and roads to get them to work. Remove all this and honestly wealth would not be affected. Good point.

    You’re right. But proportionality has been lost somewhere. Business rates and corporation should go toward maintaining those facilities (assuming they’re paid- another argument) but currently we spend too much and take too little. To redress we should be promoting growth and fair taxation, not taxation to death.

    Also, be careful with my use of ‘inefficiency’. I don’t mean the public sector is inefficient, quite the contrary in fact. They do very with with meagre resource, but they do not have any saleable competency which contributes directly to the countries wealth. Its an overhead which has been growing just a little to fast of late.

    out of interest do you blame the private sector bankers and the market for the current worldwide economic situation or just an inefficient public sector?

    Neither. Its natural (since we’re a product of nature, and the oscillations about the mean are the product of ourselves). Both banks and government should be as well placed to limit damage during the lean as they are to harvest rewards when profits are lush, but I don’t know how to make that culture change.

    Industrial revolution. Didn’t the money for that come from the wealth produced by the slave trade?

    The slave trade provided the leverage in terms of low cost resource to grow businesses above their natural rate. Its the same as farming work out now to take advantage of lower labour rates, just a little less politically correct.

    Its terrible to think of the injustice served to those people who were enslaved, and thankfully the world is a fairer place now. Still not entirely fair granted, but in the past 2-300 years the rate of acceleration toward better education, longer life and social justice has exploded. From our tiny, 75yr long point of view we see nothing has changed, but the reality is 300 years ago the world was a much less pleasant place to live for a much larger percentage of the population. It really annoys me when people try to stand in the way of progression because we’re getting so close to achieving a Utopian society for all, another 100 years is all it might take.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 181 total)

The topic ‘Harriet Harman might not be that bad after all.’ is closed to new replies.