Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Personal political/economic philosophy doesnt have to be all or nothing manifesto stuff you know.
Whilst I would agree that it is possible for the "have nots" to take a middle stance politically, its virtually impossible for the "haves" to do so. Quite simply free market means the survival of the fittest. Regretably those who argue for that system are rarely prepared to take that fight on an equal footing. If they were I might be tempted to go along with the concept rather more. In essence what I mean by that is along the lines of pass nothing on to your kids, ensure that they receive the same standard of education as everyone else, and stand back and wait for the free market to help them find their own level.
Odds on he's been sacked for excessive use of the internet for forum use.
I disklike unions because they distort the market under the cover of protection that they have in law. If that legal protection wasnt there, then the market would sort it out by firing the strikers in the interest of keeping the economic corporate entity alive and efficient even if smaller. Too many times the unions see the scale of employment as a right or due and they strike for it. That kills companies by not allowing them to adapt to market changes.
Sorry stoner but I'm going to have to take you to task on this one. Without trade unions acting the interests of the work force the market would force progressively worse working conditions. Wages, benefits, and worker safety would all be sacrificed in the interests of business. Unions provide an essential stop on the worst excesses of free market economics. I'm not suggesting from one minute that they are perfect, but then neither is the market.
Do we know what happened this is dead exciting!
If unions are so terrible, why is it that countries with high employee protection and high levels of unionisation, are also more productive countries than us?
And if anyone thinks that unions are a problem because they distort the market, I suggest you move to DR Congo, where the market is completely free.
Wages, benefits, and worker safety would all be sacrificed in the interests of business
all of which are protected in law.
The only argument for unions on those subjects is the [u]extension[/u] of "worker's rights". Taken to extremis much greater expansion of protected matters would slowly kill all unionised business. Oh look... Royal Mail arent too clever right now, are they? I wonder why not?
For those who trot out the "unions sought and won workers rights" argument, I agree - to a point - but now tell us whether you think the strength of current protected rights (which is all of those stated above) is sufficient or whether they should be extended?
I applaud the protection of workers' rights, and now they are in law, they are very much protected. From here on in though, unless those pro-unionists amongst you are appealing for an extention to those rights in either scale or breadth, then all you now do is support the unions as a belligerent beast demanding more for less, no? Hardly the stuff of the Tolpuddle martyrs anymore is it?
And where's Bushwacked - this is gettign worrying...
What I abhor is interference in active markets by the government for the sake of it.
Originally what we did/had in the early days of the industrial revolution was no regulation. Not of working hours, health care, education, unemployment benefit etc. At the time the mill owners and those who were making the money * were not exactly noticed for beneficence to their fellow man. Rather they worked people and children for 12 hours a day, paid them in tokens to be spent at their own shops, deducted damages to machines from their wages, let them live in unsanitary overcrowded housing near the mills ...in general treated them very badly. We introduced regulation in response to the effects of an unregulated free market and the Unions sprung from the uprisings of the workers against the free market forces that were hitting them. Ironically I assume they were created by the market forces of the masses who were unregulated in their ability to organise themselves?
* with some obvious exceptions like the Bourneville village
From here on in though, unless those pro-unionists amongst you are appealing for an extention to those rights in either scale or breadth, then all you now do is support the unions as a belligerent beast demanding more for less, no?
You may as well argue that we have good H & S now so we don’t need to inspect premises anymore or we have good clean water so we can just stop checking that, we have excellent consumer protection now so no need for Trading standards etc . You assume the employers/businesses would not go back to their bad all ways , the ones we had to legislate to stop them doing in the first place, if we no longer checked them. Legislation has always responded to what they did when they were not regulated.
the absence of unions, Junkyard, does not imply turning a blind eye.
The basic mechanisms of protection are now statutory - they're not going anywhere. The protection of these rights is not a continued argument for unionism.
The only viable argument for unionism is collective bargaining on wage, hours for a wage, and benefits. None of which, IMO, need any union involvment to keep them above/below mandatory floors/ceilings for the protection of workers conditions. The union cause is now solely to maximise the gains of the collective unit regardless of productivity, worth, efficiency or merit.
Pretty much agree with most of what Stoner says. I'm sick of the politcally moribund dogmatists (made up word but I like it) telling me what I do and don't believe when more often than not their the ones with a limited view of the world.
Like Stoner I believe in a free market approach with subtle and appropriate government regulation to unsure the less well off don't get trampled. Governments can't control societys or economys, at best they can guide them. They certainly can't have a very significant or positive impact with all the headline, knee jerk initiatives that the main two parties keep rehashing.
Right, Unions, have their place, particularly useful for defending the rights of a specific individual in specific circumstances, not so useful when it comes to group barganing. All depends on the type of union rep you've got, politician type in it for their own glory - tends to equal group barganing, supportive type - tends to be positive, sorts bullying and other individual problems.
As I said before I think some of you have a rather one sided view of redundancies, in some cases there will be lots of consultation etc. but in many cases it's your jobs at risk, two days later it's confirmed, here's a bung above statutory redundancy now b*gger off. Yes it may not be legal or morally right but from a practical stand point do you want to keep working for a company that behaves like that, that treats you like that. Take them to tribunal by all means, you may even win, but the pay out will be low and you'd generally have been better off diverting your energies into finding a new job. Not right but practical.
OP - hope it's not as bad as you think. Just try and keep the moral high ground even if the employer is down in the dirt, I've been there, twice and the only positive thing to come out of it was at least I stayed professional. Probably was best in the long run too as I moved on rather than let some amoral git trash my life.
What Stoner and Stumpy are actually saying here is that freemarkets are OK as long as they can write the rules for them to suit themselves. Sorry guys you can't have it both ways. Either the market is free or it isn't....that also includeds the freedom for other people to have an input surely?
Either the market is free or it isn't
and that is just dogmatic. But it's very you.
There are shades of freedom in markets as I explained earlier.
write the rules for them to suit themselves.
Hmmm. I think you might have missed the bit where I mentioned the need to manipulate markets for social good.
Fair points Stoner, and once upon a time I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you.
But, my experience made me see things differently.
I was tupe'd to a new employer, who wanted to tear up our existing redundancy agreeement on the grounds that they were a young, expanding company and had no intention of making us redundant. Without union intervention the agreement would not have been incorporated into the sale.
Two years later this company was sold. The original employees made redundant received statutory. Those of us that had come in as part of the previous purchase received our enhanced terms. To me this was the equivalent of 9 months nett salary, rather than the 5.5 weeks I would have otherwise received.
Because of this I'll always support collective representation, and I defy anybody to think of a reason I'd have been better off without it.
Anyway moving away from political differences, where is the boy, what has happened to him ?
[i]where is the boy, what has happened to him ? [/i]
I've been wondering the same - maybe it's a really long meeting! Come on bushwhacked, what's happened?!
Like Stoner I believe in a free market approach with subtle and appropriate government regulation to unsure the less well off don't get trampled. Governments can't control societys or economys, at best they can guide them. They certainly can't have a very significant or positive impact with all the headline, knee jerk initiatives that the main two parties keep rehashing.
This is "motherhood and apple pie" as well as a contradiction in terms. You admit (as does Stoner) that intervention is required to limit the extremes that a "free" market would create.
Once you agree this then the rest is politics. Politics determines where these boundaries lie and attempts to overcome these extremes via intervention.
You and I may disagree about where these boundaries are set and that is a political argument.
By saying you want a "free market" then saying you want some regulation is like being a "little bit pregnant"
[i]where is the boy, what has happened to him ? [/i]
Maybe he has more important things to attend to?
By saying you want a "free market" then saying you want some regulation is like being a "little bit pregnant"
semantically you are correct. And I have argued with gus over the use of the word "free", but I was trying to simplify my economic ideology for the hard of thinking. We all know perfectly well that there is no such thing as a "free" market - what do we think taxes are? But, there comes a point where the state has so much control over the market that it utterly stiffles economic activity. Ultimately it comes down to a political/economic view of: would you prefer to see a GDP of £100bn distributed evenly, or one of £200bn distributed unevenly?
Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face rather than encourage economic growth to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face rather than encourage economic growth to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
And this is where you are wrong. Your stating that is right wing dogma. That simply is not the position of the moderate left nor is it a part of any leftist philosophy.
I thought you were a right wing ideologue. My view has changed - its a mix of ignorance, fear, jealousy and ideology.
beware the leftist bogyman!
You need to look to the German economy - moderate left concesus - social democratic with high union member ship and a partnership model between the boardroom and the shop floor
100! (Sorry!)
That simply is not the position of the moderate left nor is it a part of any leftist philosophy.
tell me by what mechanism the left believe growth can be encouraged?
Economic liberals would say reduction in taxation, reduction in state expenditure, de-regulation and worker mobility.
ignorance, fear, jealousy
where on earth do you get that from?
my economic ideology for the hard of thinking
Then maybe I fall into this category as your logic is not clear.
Ignorance - you are clearly ignorant of political philosophy
Fear - look at the language you use to describe the current government
Jealousy - were you not on the side of removing pension rights from the public sector?
I ain't going to argue with you any further. I am not the only one on this thread to see the ridiculousness of your position.
Ultimately it comes down to a political/economic view of: would you prefer to see a GDP of £100bn distributed evenly, or one of £200bn distributed unevenly[1]?
Leftist dogma would rather cut off the economy's nose to spite it's face [2]rather than encourage economic growth[3] to deliver the greatest benefit[4] to the greatest number[5].
You make a number of unsubstantiated claims and assumptions in your model of economic nirvana.
Ignorance - you are clearly ignorant of political philosophyFear - look at the language you use to describe the current government
Jealousy - were you not on the side of removing pension rights from the public sector?
just because you say it, doesnt make it so, TJ.
I certainly dont need to make any defence against that ridiculous post you've just bundled out.
Equally, there are others that agree with me. Your point of view is not "right" TJ. It is your opinion. As is mine. You have the arrogance of the pious Left in you.
and that is just dogmatic. But it's very you.
Pot kettle and black to you sexy butt!
Actually, lets dance the dance if you're going to be like that. So please tell me exactly what is so great about the free market and consumerism Stones... please
ok right wingers exposed for caring about profit rather than people
moving on, what happened with the HR meeting??
ok right wingers exposed for caring about profit rather than people
and just where did I say anything of the sort?
Your point of view is not "right" TJ. It is your opinion. As is mine
Correct
You have the arrogance of the pious Left in you.
Pot kettle black
All through this thread I have made comments about what I think should change to encourage prosperity in the UK for all.
What has anyone on the "left" (if I'm to be accused of being on the "right" - but we're talking economically here, not politically IMO) proposed? more of the same? greater regulation? higher wages and shorter working hours for all unionised industries? The left sees only progress in terms of legislation and regulation, not economic freedom and economic growth. You cant legislate to increase employment for example. As I said on another thread about the waste of undergraduates in further education, a liberal economist would remove NI contributions and allow tax deductibility for apprenticeships. What would the left propose? TJ?
What happened to the guy who was wrongfully sacked for inappropriate Internet use? This thread reminded me of it but I can't find the thread myself.
I am further from the left than you are from the right. Ernies your man for that. I am a dark green anarchist. I believe in the no growth society.
Robdob - that was zedsdead - IIRC after getting advice and support from here and other places he was reinstated but the final outcome was never clear.
I believe in the no growth society.
WTF? Shall we just stay in our caves, then?
I believe in the no growth society.
And Id agree with you there, right after we've licked the birth rate> death rate thing.
I was hoping zedsdead would come back in here with a full story one day. Daft employer getting a shoeing fo it. And amazingly he managed it without any union membership. Wonders will never cease.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
All through this thread I have made comments about what I think should change to encourage prosperity in the UK for all.
You indicated you preferred £200bn distributed unevenly to £100bn distributed evenly. I dont want to misquote you however this only leads to greater wealth nor equity of distribution, unless you are a believer in the "trickle down" affect?
surfer- no you havent mis-quoted me. That is correct - id prefer to see a net wealthier economy than a poorer but more equitable one. Ultimately redistribution does occur (as you say, a kind of trickle down effect) but people get hung up on the long tails - those mega rich at one end, rather than the far greater effect of raising the wealth of many, many more people in the more average ranges of wealth.
Deluded
like it.
very good deluded!
trickle down doesnt work, while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen
minimum wage helped to offset this to start with but its never gonna be enough
my firends in the city go to great length to ensure that the large amounts of money they make are safe from the greedy taxman and im sure that they are not alone
but people get hung up on the long tails - those mega rich at one end, rather than the far greater effect of rainsing the wealth of many, many more people in the more average ranges of wealth.
Aggregate wealth is something we would all welcome but you choose not to mention the "mega poor" at the other end. I am not a great believer in the apparent disincentive effect of higher taxation at the margins as I suspect you are.
Rather than relying on a fictitious method of wealth distribution I would rather rely on an interventionist government to minimize the losers in your "tail"
while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen
And who presided over this rise in inequality? Oh yes....
Hello,
Two cod and chips, large
1 Hadock and chips, standard.
Mushy peas and 1 pickled egg,
Thanks
[i]And who presided over this rise in inequality? Oh yes....[/i]
it was the torries i mean nulabour,,, erm same thing
while the economy has boomed inequality has also risen
Welcome to Labour's lousy taxation legacy. Huge increases in duty and regressive taxes like NI (The "Stealth" taxes) hit the poor greater than the wealthy.
Attempts to increase taxation on the wealthy tail simply encourage tax avoidance. The government can have a go at legislation, but as he says: "my firends in the city go to great length to ensure that the large amounts of money they make are safe from the greedy taxman and im sure that they are not alone" there's plenty of people who will find a way.
clumsy tax credits have been needed to fix the mess and even then they get it wrong.
My solution: increase personal tax allowances from £6.5k to £10k, scrap 10p tax rate, increase the tax rate from 22p to 25, 26, 27p ish, harmonise capital, corporate and income taxes regimes. Cut VAT to 12%, 0% on food/kids clothes/Green energy products.
Everyone wants to know the outcome in a supportive non voyueristic way ...obviously,
but the freemarket isn't free discussion is an interesting diversion while we do surely ?
Sorry, out of eggs.
Pickled onion ok, on the house?
Attempts to increase taxation on the wealthy tail simply encourage tax avoidance.
Therefore we should avoid this by not taxing them? isnt that a bit like saying criminals try to escape so to avoid this pesky state of affairs lets not lock them up? There may exist a perception that high tax rates on those earning over 150k are unfair. However that perception needs challenging. As I mentioned before its overstating it to say that such high marginal tax rates act as a disincentive.
My solution: increase personal tax allowances from £6.5k to £10k, scrap 10p tax rate, increase the tax rate from 22p to 25, 26, 27p ish, harmonise capital, corporate and income taxes regimes. Cut VAT to 12%, 0% on food/kids clothes/Green energy products.
Fine and how are the other side of the accounts looking? What about the 50% rate?
i get all the rest i think but what does
meanharmonise capital, corporate and income taxes regimes
and agree with much of it but would like to see higher taxes at the top end , like these guys [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8321967.stm ]Rich Germans demand higher taxes[/url]
surely tightening up tax loopholes properly and stiff penalties for avoidance is the way forward
the way i see it nulabour cosied up to the city far too much following the dream of big money in the city means the nation will be wealthier, which it wasnt we (the plebs) just borrowed more because rich banks were happy to lend us more
but will the torries continue the same policy of kissing city and bank ass??
actually, that ought to balance pretty much.
Im happy with a c.40% of GDP tax take in the UK.
On the other side of the accounts though there needs to be some serious belt tightening to get our deficit back down. Income surpluses would be needed to pay down our national debt not plump up the public sector.
So what happened??
Nice sidestepping of the freemarket thing and wazzing off up the I'd like to pay less tax alley, dont you think??
variation in capital gains tax, income tax and corporation tax allow individuals room for arbitration of taxation on income and investments - in other words gives opportunity to avoid tax. It also means that structurally as a company grows the taxtion environment of it's owners changes - which over complicates the issue.
On the other side of the accounts though there needs to be some serious belt tightening to get our deficit back down. Income surpluses would be needed to pay down our national debt not plump up the public sector.
One persons "fattening up" is anothers crucial service but in principle I agree. I cant help feeling that you wont be feeling the "belt tightening" however to paraphrase a Tory chancellor, I feel the deficit (managed down over a reasonable period) is a price worth paying to avoid the misery of the 80's.
Nice sidestepping of the freemarket thing and wazzing off up the I'd like to pay less tax alley, dont you think??
jeezarse Bandit.
Do you never read anything?
Im advocating the better off paying higher taxes pro-rata. 🙄
It doesnt need a 50% tax rate to do that. As Ive said before the 50% rate is a red herring and a distraction.
National debt is a pretty meaningless measure of how well off a country is. All through the Victorian and early Edwardian period our National Debt was up near 80% of GDP, and it saw the greatest level of expansion in our history. Japan's is up near 200%, and yet they have some of the highest living standards, France and Germany think nothing of having National debt running at about 70-75% all the time. Not having debt as an individual is a good idea, as far as country's go, it don't matter all that much.
One persons "fattening up" is anothers crucial service
Only if Mr Another genuinely believes that 100% of public expenditure is crucial service.*
* Hint, can you guess that I probably dont think it is? 🙂
TJ you make an interesting point about the role of unions in Germany. If the unions in this country would only take the same role then I think I might even join one.
The problem is that Germany has a very different model of capitalism to us (Alliance model versus the eponymous Anglo Saxon model). The German system is no better or worse than ours, it's just different, but it does give rise to competitive advantages in certain areas, such as manufacturing/process refinement, whereas our model is better for things radical innovation.
It would be difficult for the unions in this country to take a more collaborative approach, as they do in Germany, without also having the same level of legal commitment between Germans employees have from their employer. Thing is that level of legal commitment would stiffle a highly mobile and flexible work force which is one of the things that supports radical innovation.
I drew up a chair a while back but am getting a sore bum, anyone want to swap ?
Shall i put the kettle on ?
Japans national debt has seriously held back its GDP growth for the last 15 years.
France and Germany share a currency with other economies so that they have the monetary scale to act as a proxy for a reserve currency - like the US.
The US can get away with printing their way out of debt because the Dollar is the world's reserve currency.
Stirling isnt.
Running a high deficit is certainly not a problem as such. But redemption and interest have to be served from current income, or be inflated away. During the victorian era the public sector was a fraction of what it is now, so could serve the cost of debt from revenue. Nowadays, if we are to continue to enjoy the scale of services we have from a 40% GDP tax take into the future, we have to reduce that part of the revenue that is directed at interest and amortisation.
Who's up for buying some GILTs as protection for the next 10 years of inflation? 🙂
SO was it the porn in the toilet ?
I reckon he works for the treasury and is the guy leaking stuff to the conservatives.
Alistair Darling has him in shackles as we speak...
who would have dreamed HR issues could be so dull ?
He never did say what time the meeting was, any ideas anyone ?
I feel a bond with the OP after plouging through his thread but i am also wondering what the silence means
On the other hand does anyone fancy a pint?
well its been a more enjoyable way of spending the day than it could have been. I think Im ready for that pint too.
Hope bushwacked comes back soon. Getting worried for him...
jeezarse Bandit.
Do you never read anything?
Only when its interesting and/or pertinent, which I hate to say your theory on tax for the better off just isn't. The real issue here is your original point that a freemarket ethos does not exclude you from centre or left of centre politics. As far as I can see you have been busily avoiding that issue and trying to fill the resultant hole that you dug ever since. C'mon how about coughing that you may have been a bit previous with that one?? 🙄
bushwhacked can't get a word in edgeways!
Berm Bandit - is in the room of looking good.
Interesting thread folks. How is our man doing, do you reckon that he only has a PC at work and can no longer use it, hope not.
do you reckon that he only has a PC at work and can no longer use it, hope not.
I really do hope that's not the case...
*sends positive waves....*
maybe it's the otherway round and only got stw access from home (after all first post was about 6.30 yesterday).
so no news is good news (i hope)
Look at these two definitions of the centre/moderate right/left:
In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for social policies that favor the upper class, and belief in a single traditional culture for national unity. The contemporary Right usually defines itself as [u]promoting deregulation of business, commerce and industry.[/u]
The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; [u]protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities[/u] and the working class.
I have underlined those bits that coincide with my personal political ideology.
if you insist that [i]"a freemarket ethos is does not exclude [me] from centre or left of centre politics[/i]" then I would insist that my political views do not exclude me from the left either. Or is it a political no-mans land? As I said right at the begninning, an individuals political philosophy neednt be wholly aligned with one manifesto or another. If people are going to go around labelling other's politics, perhaps they should consider not being be quite so narrow-minded first.
So it's back on at about 6:30, like the positive vibe thing. Lets stop the bitching give out those good Karma waves Hommmmmm....
I see we are back on the correct topic, the man in possible need.
Looks like it was a shallow grave for Bushwhacked - I suggest a minutes silence.
Ok I've eaten all my biscuits now and am on to the chocolate. Bushwacked, please what happened....?
if you insist that "a freemarket ethos is does not exclude [me] from centre or left of centre politics" then I would insist that my political views do not exclude me from the left either
Do you know I have absolutely no idea what that was about...
Besides my entire being is now focussed on positive vibes for bushwacked. So regret that my attention has temporarily wavered from tickling your political testicles
SO what happened????
Well,either it was a promotion,and he's out on the lash,celebrating,or the big heave-ho,and he's out on the lash,drowning his sorrows.This could be a long evening,especially if we have to discuss each others faith systems at length.
Ian
I think he probably fell asleep reading the rest of this thread.
Private medical companies competing to sell services to the NHS that the NHS then administers to the user, if done correctly*, should provide the best value for money to the state...To date it hasnt particularly.
Therein lies the rub. If we want a resonable degree of [i]comprehensive[/i] cover, then - frankly - "competition" is fairly meaningless in the context of, say, major trauma or neonatal intensive care. [b]Somebody[/b] (with the necessary, hard-won experience) has to do the dirty work... usually above and beyond any specified job description. That's not NHS sentimentalism on my part - just simple fact. Continental healthcare makes more use of mixed provision, certainly, but it ain't the "market" (or even competing private interests) which picks up the slack, so much as charitable/NfPFT/educational institutions. Indeed, NuLab gave [url= http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=2432 ][i]preferential[/url][/i] treatment to the private sector during procurement, with frequently piss-poor results - but that didn't stop well run in-house assets such as NHS Logistics being spun off to the likes of DHL...
Just adding some more padding - hope the OP is ok. 😐
Please......please tell me what happened to Bushwacked, I can't stand it any longer..... 😥