But personal progression up that structure is almost a given, and those incremental rewards and victories for the individual are what we live for.

Naive nonsense. Not everyone can ” progress up the structure” the very ethos of capitalism means that there is a loser for every winner. What improves peoples standards of living is in large redistribution via the taxation system.

Without socialist ideals the lot of the average person would be far worse and its completely naive to believe otherwise. Look to the USA – the most capitalist state on earth – there you have people relying on charity for food amid all that wealth, you have people without proper healthcare, you have child mortality rates that are awful.

I refuse to lower my conversational standards to your remedial level.

hate to point it out, but you just have, in fact by throwing insults, i think you’ve gone below my level.

don’t worry, we’re all down here in the gutter, just some of us are looking up at the stars 8)

You must have missed my point that the capitalist structure (which provides for and can be synchronous with a socialist element)

You mean mixed economy then dont you not a purely capitalist one . Is that a tacit admission that philanthropic capitalism alone cannot provide everything?

There will be some doing better than others, and there has to be one bugger at the top too. But personal progression up that structure is almost a given, and those incremental rewards and victories for the individual are what we live for.

These are muttually exclusive – some at the top some at the bottom yet we can all progress our way up? HOW is it just All must be winners and all must have prizes?

We’ll have leveraged more from the deal than they did without a doubt, but through their own tenacity the wealth gap between us and China, and the internal wealth gap in China has decreased

Yes massive difference some of the earn over a dollar a day I said a dollar a day at this rate this time next decade they can have two dollar a day ..takes your breath away that kind of philanthropic gesture by venture capitalists. Are they making more than a dollar a day do you think from this deal?
They are there because labour is cheap and we can make more from the deal there than elesewhere

hear ya when you say redistribution of wealth would fix a lot of ills, but really, who’s going to go for that?

Educated people with a moral conscious, a sense of fair play and the ability to not be personally greedy.

REAL, tangible benefit for people in Asia

Which could equally be described as commercial exploitation for maximum western gain. Do you deny that they could gain more with a redistributive policy.

and it trumps your idealogical notion every single day as a viable method for increasing human well-being

all my ideological notion says is take the money we have and spread it around[redistribute] more evenly to the people of the world. are you claming the people of asia would be worse off if we gave them more money?

[

ernie_lynch – Member
I actually quite agree with TJ, …. if this government is given a full term, then it is very possible that they will increase unemployment by a million. After all, the last time the Tories came to power they increased unemployment by 1.5 million in their first term.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong though.

no hat eating either then? 😉

no hat eating either then?

You really have got a thing about ‘hat eating’ haven’t you big_n_daft ?

Well if there’s going to be any hat eating going on, then it’s going to involve a hell of a lot of people……..along with the growing list of economists (including Nobel Prize winning economists) which have warned that George Osborn’s policies will lead to staggering levels of unemployment, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development threw its hat in yesterday declaring that “1.6 million jobs will go in UK”.

You might try and ridicule TJ’s claims big_n_daft, but the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which is saying the same as TJ, is Europe’s largest professional body for human resources and development, and was giving evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee

The CIPD claims that even more jobs will be lost in the private sector than in the public sector as a result of the government’s austerity measures. This includes 250,000 jobs losses due to the increase of VAT to 20%. They seriously challenge Osborne’s claim that any job losses in the public sector will be made up by new jobs in the private sector.

CIPD: 1.6 million jobs will go in UK

No one can predict with complete certainty what will happen – you can only make reasonable assumptions and learn from history.

As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman said a couple of weeks ago when he was condemning this government’s austerity measures, “As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”

The only person who is claiming to know exactly the outcome of these austerity measures, is George Osborne. It would appear that he has a crystal ball, and after gazing at it for some time, tells us that he is 100% certain that his measures will sort out the economy.

Remember, this is the guy who didn’t even predict the Credit Crunch.

Still, he won’t give a monkeys how things turn out. I’m sure the fact that Thatcher doubled unemployment after winning an election on the slogan “Labour isn’t working” and pictures of huge dole queues, won’t be lost on him.

Look to the USA – the most capitalist state on earth – there you have people relying on charity for food amid all that wealth, you have people without proper healthcare, you have child mortality rates that are awful.

Im pretty sure the US is not alone in this regard, and not certainly the highest either?

As for wealth re-destribution, to all those who subscribe to this, do you find yourself down the local soup kitchen or sink estate doing your bit? Forgoing your large TV’s, expensive bikes etc so that others can eat better etc, or is the wealth only to be distributed from the wealthy above a certain threshold, i.e. the just over what you earn threshold? I know some will come back and say that you would gladly pay a higher rate of tax, well instead of waiting for labour to raise taxes next time, pretend they are already raised and go donate it to something worthy.

Not everyone can ” progress up the structure” the very ethos of capitalism means that there is a loser for every winner

Providing there is constant growth, there are always more winners than losers.

Look to the USA

The USA is not somewhere I would wish to be poor, thats for sure! There are the facilities for individuals to lift themselves from poverty in the US, but there are more tempting opportunities (drink, drugs, malaise) to perpetuate it. If our ‘mixed’ system leans left 1% too much (for my liking), then theirs leans right 75% too much.

Is that a tacit admission that philanthropic capitalism alone cannot provide everything?

Absolutely. The wealth generated by the capitalist element provides for the socialist part. A 100% capitalist society could stand on its own feet, but considering there are a few people who physically can’t contribute and take those steps up the ladder, it would be an unpleasant place to live. A wholly socialist society however cannot support itself.

some at the top some at the bottom yet we can all progress our way up?

Again, see growth.

The rest of your post

The thing is Junkyard, this is where I depart on a realist route and you continue wishfully on your idealogical one. Redistribution of wealth would not terminally end poverty. Injection of large amounts of cash to impoverished economies would kick off inflation, draining the new resource almost instantly. You’d then either return to the previous levels of wellbeing, or require money to be printed at an enormous and unsustainable rate to maintain.

Lets forget money for a minute. If you imagine the world economy as a gearbox, and the individuals within as the gears, what we have now is a situation where the resistance against the gears is just enough to limit us to a marginal, and (almost!) sustainable level of growth (~3%). In the west, you have some very big gears (rich), in the east you have some small ones (poor). You can change up gears, but like on your bike, that takes extra effort to achieve and you can only go one at a time.

If you made all the gears the same size however, the resistance to the system (natural growth) would be disproportionate to the level of work done by each gear, and the system would break.

Redistribution as an idea has been around forever, but will never, ever happen because those who understand know it won’t benefit a single human being in the long term. (I’d also like to point out that my example of real people seeing real benefit and exceeding a widely acknowledged poverty measure is withstanding; I am yet to be shown a single instance of how preaching redistribution of wealth on the internet has benefited anyone. By that measure, my beliefs are more wholesome and caring than yours :))

You really have got a thing about ‘hat eating’ haven’t you big_n_daft ?

no, some people on the forum have a thing about quoting lots of statistics in defense of their arguments which they repeat a number of times. The particular issue is very serious and prolonged “we’re doomed” discussion help no-one.

I merely have a differing view to that of some posters ( mine is without extensive references to research) and offered to assist in the clarification of the point that was being made. I was even prepared to put up some collateral as quid pro quo for the risk of having to devour a hat.

If you are not prepared to stand by your assertions it then puts them in a certain light I would say.

Are you prepared to put up, or do you just need to……… 😉

before I get accused of being an “intellectual coward” again, I’m off eating my dinner

If you are not prepared to stand by your assertions it then puts them in a certain light I would say.

Are you prepared to put up, or do you just need to……..

I have made it very clear where I stand. And I have also commented on those who claim to know exactly, with complete certainty, what will happen. Read my post again.

I have made it very clear where I stand

hmmm…

ernie_lynch – Member
No one can predict with complete certainty what will happen – you can only make reasonable assumptions and learn from history.

very clear then

should we take this as your view and come back in 2015?

ernie_lynch – Member
…. if this government is given a full term, then it is very possible that they will increase unemployment by a million. After all, the last time the Tories came to power they increased unemployment by 1.5 million in their first term.

if so can we use this as the baseline

ONS
Labour market statistics
October 2010
Date: 13 October 2010
Coverage: United Kingdom Theme: Labour Market
For June to August 2010:
The employment rate was 70.7 per cent and there were 29.16 million employed people.
The unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent and there were 2.45 million unemployed people.

or is it easier to continue to pedal vague hyperbole about how the country is doomed adding to the worries of people directly/ indirectly in publicly funded employment?

do you find yourself down the local soup kitchen or sink estate doing your bit?

yes because unlike you I give a sh!t about the suffering of my fellow man

or is the wealth only to be distributed from the wealthy above a certain threshold

No I am all for more mansions and foreign homes for the wealthy whilst people starve just like you. Yes I am prepared to do my bit even though I am on below average earnings.

pretend they are already raised and go donate it to something worthy.

Do you think I might just do this already? See point above about giving a sh1t

Providing there is constant growth, there are always more winners than losers

No offence but can you do maths?
The top 10 % of the population own 71 % of the wealth and the top 1% 31.3%. The bottom 40% own 0.4%. There seems to be a bit of disproportionate winning don’t you think? Now to achieve this you need a hell of a lot of losers Dont you!!! – this is just simple maths and not even debatable. By distributing the worlds wealth evenly there will be more winners than losers compared to the staus quo. These are just facts they cannot be debated.

some at the top some at the bottom yet we can all progress our way up?

Again, see growth

What with growth 60% of us can be in the top 10% Brilliant

Redistribution of wealth would not terminally end poverty

Yes apparently we can only end poverty by keeping it the hands of a minority who make more money from your labour than you do – as we can see looking around the world today it has undoubtedly been a resounding success and there are no people living in poverty due to philanthropic capitalism which has ended poverty worldwide. For sure poor people dont want any of our money they would prefer to starve as they realise in the long run they are better off being exploited another excellent point

Redistribution as an idea has been around forever, but will never, ever happen because those who understand know it won’t benefit a single human who own the most money and power know it won’t benefit them in the long term

Fixed it for you
They soemhow convince enough people , like you,that if they work hard they can become one of the inners despite the fact the syetem needs many more losers than winners. It is a great trick for sure.

I am yet to be shown a single instance of how preaching redistribution of wealth on the internet has benefited anyone. By that measure, my beliefs are more wholesome and caring than yours :))

Humility is another quality you may wish to work on with self awareness and maths. Probably work on your sarcasm as well.
Seeing as we are doing ludicrous analogies can I plagiarise RPRT
Imagine you are stuck on an island with a number of other people. You are all starving to death. Then one day one of you finds a shopping trolley full of food washed up on the beach. This person then decides to keep it all for themselves, bar a packet of biscuits, because apparently the others won’t benefit from it being shared equally in the long run. He then explains to them how much better off they are under his system as now they have a biscuit each whereas before they had nothing.
If you are happy with that then so be it but dont try and pretend the system is about the maximum good for the maximum people it is about maximising profit and this can only be done by having a very large base of poor people from which to make your money.

Junkyard I don’t want to get in to a pissing contest with you about who does what for who, and I don’t really want to argue with you. Like you I do what I can for others as I appreciate what a little help can do.

Thing is, just like there are people at the top of the chain who take advantage there are also those who will always leach of others, it’s just the way it is I suppose. Anyway it’s a good healthy discussion that needs to be had, and I have learnt a few things from others on this thread, so it’s all good I hope 🙂

Junky, looking at your last post, its pretty clear to me that you don’t understand the clear distinction between wealth and welfare. You’re hooked up on the premise that a finite amount of wealth, if spread equally, would provide equally pleasant living standards for everyone. My argument is, the abundance of wealth in the top 10% has no bearing on the welfare of the people in the bottom 10%.

So if the top 10% possess 70% of the wealth, do they possess 70% of the welfare? Nope, they’ll still get ill and die. Would a redistribution of that wealth directly translate into sustainable welfare for the bottom 10%? I doubt it; wealth is an instantly trade-able, fleeting commodity and as I pointed out in my last post, any injection of wealth into a community (geographically or socially distinguished) would disrupt the local economics but not achieve a lasting change in living conditions. Wealth is just providing the gearing for the system, delicately set up but changeable in time.

The problem is welfare can only be earned. Investment of time is the only way to earn it, it cannot be purchased and as such the redistribution idea falls over. The good news is that welfare is infinitely abundant, the more we as a race work (using my ‘philanthropic capitalist’ framework to structure, organise and incentivise) the further we all climb up a welfare ladder. The idea that there has to be ‘losers’ is ridiculous.

Junky, looking at your last post, its pretty clear to me that you don’t understand the clear distinction between wealth and welfare. You’re hooked up on the premise that a finite amount of wealth, if spread equally, would provide equally pleasant living standards for everyone. My argument is, the abundance of wealth in the top 10% has no bearing on the welfare of the people in the bottom 10%.

So if the top 10% possess 70% of the wealth, do they possess 70% of the welfare? Nope, they’ll still get ill and die. Would a redistribution of that wealth directly translate into sustainable welfare for the bottom 10%? I doubt it; wealth is an instantly trade-able, fleeting commodity and as I pointed out in my last post, any injection of wealth into a community (geographically or socially distinguished) would disrupt the local economics but not achieve a lasting change in living conditions. Wealth is just providing the gearing for the system, delicately set up but changeable in time.

The problem is welfare can only be earned. Investment of time is the only way to earn it, it cannot be purchased and as such the redistribution idea falls over. The good news is that welfare is infinitely abundant, the more we as a race work (using my ‘philanthropic capitalist’ framework to structure, organise and incentivise) the further we all climb up a welfare ladder. The idea that there has to be ‘losers’ is ridiculous.

My argument is, the abundance of wealth in the top 10% has no bearing on the welfare of the people in the bottom 10%

I am sure those in the bottom 10% without enough wealth to provide themselves or their children with food, education, health care or clean water-welfare- and who die as a result may disagree with your view 🙄 You think if they had the money to buy these things they would be no better off in terms of welfare 😯 In the real world people born in wealthy nations live , on average for much longer than people born in poor nations….it is such a shame that reality bears no relation to your vision.
This is not really a philosophical view of capitalism worthy of debate it is just a rather bonkers view of the world we live in not supported by observing reality. I give it as much weight as I do creationism or a flat earth. I realise you will disagree so be it.

Brilliant. What a well constructed, fabulously insightful retort that is. You, Sir, are a true powerhouse of intellect and morality. Or maybe you’ve just resorted to trotting out the same old day-dreamy, feel good crap I blasted Trailmonkey for? 🙄

I’ve proffered an explanation as to why a simple redistribution would not work, and again you’ve chosen to ignore it and continue to assume some baffling moral high ground (which again I’ve deconstructed, proving your ‘values’ are yet to actually help anyone). I’m guessing you either find my response;
a) too difficult to swallow
b) too difficult to understand

For the second time I’m out, and we’ll let this die. I’ll carry on working, building, progressing and taking pride in the human race as conditions genuinely and continually improve for everyone. Feel free to continue on your regressive, jealously driven hate campaign, pointlessly and ineffectively ‘wishing’ for equality and welfare for all.

What’s this nonsense all about again? I got bored a long time ago, and haven’t been paying attention.

Is it just the usual people trying to ‘out-clever’ each other, and using carefully-selected things off tinternet to present their arguments?

What really amuses me, is quite why they all waste time and energy arguing with one another, when they all know that I am right anyway. 🙂

soory ben you lost me there 😉

Britains Trillion Pound horror story

What? Letting this thread die? Who said that? Not me, that’s for sure!! 😉

Even Daaaarling can’t stand up to interrogation (but has the cheek to say he’s not the authority on such matters?!). I think my point is made.

Oh and I had no idea this program was coming or of its contents, its pure coincidence its arguments precisely follow my own; public sector cuts, increase national output, look to China for an example of how its done. Excellent piece of programming!

Its a polemic and the same load of bollox you spouted.

Economics for the hard of thinking righting

Bears no resemblance to reality.

as conditions genuinely and continually improve for everyone

😆