To get back to the OP;if it was not for the family tax credits neither of us would have been able to re-train.So I am kind of in favour of them.
Chat Forum
[closed]
No wonder our great nation is skint
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Both wrong. Your interpretation of "goods" is too limited, it needs to include services.
No, "services" are not "goods". There are three main areas of economic activity - production, distribution, and exchange. They are not all the same. And the production of goods is not the same as distributing or exchanging them, although the latter might be described as providing a service, as indeed banks do. But they do not create the material wealth.
The buying and selling of houses might well result in an accumulation of large amounts of money, but it does not in itself, result in material wealth - nothing has been produced. Banks etc, provide an important and vital service, but it is absurd to suggest that providing a mortgage for a house, is more important than the actual construction of the house.
And it is the house itself, which is the material wealth ..... £300k in used twenties, would provide very poor accommodation for a family of three - the best you could expect would be to burn it an attempt to stay warm for a couple of hours. Therefore the banker who provides the mortgage, is not more important the construction worker who builds the house. All that bankers do, is to facilitate the easy exchange of material wealth created by others.
And in the process of doing so, they retain a percentage of the value for themselves. In other words, bankers exploit the wealth created by others.And whilst on the subject of bankers and construction workers, here is an other example of bankers being elevated to special status within society, which they clearly do not deserve :
RBS profits for the 5 years 2003-2007 came to over £40Bn. Much of that made its way to the Treasury in the form of.....blah...blah
Now of course when the RBS went tits up in 2008 it wasn't because something went every wrong that particular week. It was because something had been very wrong for a very long time. Making large amounts of money due to negligent practices is hardly a commendable achievement. But this is conveniently ignored because bankers are special and "make" lots of money.
And yet if there occurred a catastrophic failure of a house which I, as a construction worker, had worked on, leading to it's complete collapse due to gross professional negligence on my part - how responsible would I be held ?
Could I exonerate myself by claiming that I was an excellent worker ? And the proof of this was in the fact that when I had worked on the house three years previously, I had earned vast amounts of money on price work ....... due to my stunningly impressive speed.
And of course also helped along, by self-serving greed, a cavalier attitude to risks, and a complete lack of regulation
Posted 2 years ago # -
TJ wrote, "There is a big difference between making profits - which banks do and creating wealth which they don't. They move wealth around but do not create any. They sometimes even import wealth - but they still are not creating any. Its manufacturing that creates wealth.. "
But banks can create the opportunity for others to create wealth, as in the examples I made above. If a builder builds a house and nobody buys it, he's not creating wealth but if a builder builds a house and a bank lends someone money to buy it, then wealth is created due to the builder AND the bank. Likewise if someone has an idea but can't fund putting it into production and a bank gives them startup capital, the bank is creating wealth by supporting the manufacturer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Northwind - you are making the basic mistake of confusing money with wealth. Wealth is material things - the house you refer to above is wealth no matter if it is sold or not.
Bankz can create the conditions for people to create wealth but that do not create any of their own.
Money is not wealth.
basic economics.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So presumably the chauffeur who drives the banker to work so that he secure his lucrative deals, is responsible for the banker's wealth ?
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Northwind - you are making the basic mistake of confusing money with wealth. Wealth is material things - the house you refer to above is wealth no matter if it is sold or not.
Bankz can create the conditions for people to create wealth but that do not create any of their own."
I'm really not. Money is not the same as wealth but if you're producing a product exclusively for sale then the sale must take place in order for the product to realise its worth. (obviously production for resale is only one way to create wealth, but currently it's the only way the builder creates any wealth for himself, and so it's the only one which we need consider) The unsold empty house is not an asset unless there's a buyer, in fact it's a liability.
Your logical flaw is in failing to take into account that all the conditions for a situation to occur have to be fulfilled in order for it to give the results. Factory without funding = no wealth created, bank without factory = no wealth created. Factory + bank funding = wealth created. It's clearly incorrect to state that the factory is the only part in that process which is creating wealth, since if you take away the other ingredients it produces nothing.
This reminds me of an old business joke... Nike's directors get together one day and say "What business are we in?"
"Well, we make and sell shoes"
"But how do we sell those shoes?"
"We make people want to buy our shoes more than the competition"
"But how do we do that?"
"Through advertising and sports sponsorship"At the end of the meeting, Nike stops making shoes and goes exclusively into making adverts, because it's the advertising that makes them money.
But if TJ's argument is correct, it would go something like this:
"Well, we make and sell shoes"
"But how do we sell those shoes?"
"We make people want to buy our shoes more than the competition"
"But how do we do that?"
"Well, mainly because of advertising and sports sponsorship"
"Ah, but our advertising men make no shoes, therefore they create no wealth... And wealth is created when we make a shoe whether or not anyone buys it, because wealth isn't the same as money. So lets sack them all"
"Great!"
"While we're at it, sack the people who put the shoes in boxes, and the truck drivers, and close down the shops, they don't create wealth either"
"Fantastic, we're going to save a fortune and create the exact same amount of wealth!"I'm not touching Ernie's ridiculous and prejudiced straw man with a 10 foot pole.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm not touching Ernie's ridiculous and prejudiced straw man with a 10 foot pole.
Ignoring my posts is almost certainly your best strategy. Specially if the Nike joke represents the best you can come up with.
But of course just by commenting on my post, you have touched it, so here's a tip : for maximum effect just make no comment at all.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have no problem paying tax because I am comfortably off, for now. But the way it is spent is frustrating.
Benefits seem based on a low total income. If your total income varies, it's recalculated. I you make an effort to work a bit more, the benefit goes down.
What if benefit level was based on hourly-rate? It's less variable than total income. The recipient is encourage to work and earn more without losing the benefit. I wont be paying any more tax, but the country is gaining a more productive worker.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Errrmmm - that does not reduce the amount of money in the economy - it just moves it around a bit
Surely if more people are claiming benefits then paying taxes then we are just generating debt?
Posted 2 years ago # -
If a stock, say, is worth £1 when I buy it, and £1.50 when I sell it, is that not created wealth?
Posted 2 years ago # -
If you think benefits would be better jack your job in and do it and stop moaning on here... Anyway they real problem is labour hasnt had the stones to go after the rich, whilst trying to help the poor which has squeezed those in the middle. I would expect the original poster my find his retirement will be better than those on low incomes.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
