Got a spare €400m ?
Comments
-
Give the man some credit even if you disagree with his views - he generates a good bit of debate
And in this case he has got a few good points (IMO) if you can look past his own situation and play the ball rather than the man."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Give the man some credit even if you disagree with his views - he generates a good bit of debate
And in this case he has got a few good points (IMO) if you can look past his own situation and play the ball rather than the man.
Was this your 6,000th post :roll:
:P"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
Not blinkered, just pragmatic. I've argued several times that the current set up isn't perfect but its the best we've got - if it wasn't there'd be another system in place. QED.pinarello001 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
I had an exchange of views with some lefty type on here a while ago and asked him to spell out in a bit of detail how he would do things better than the current set up. Got no reply. Anyone here care to set out the business case for socialist utopia?
You are blinkered like a lot of right wing people. You seem to think the only alternative to the current capitalist economy is socialism. The current global order has plunged billions of people into poverty and it is a direct consequence of exploitation of raw materials, people, goods and services.
There is no 'utopia' not under capitalism and not under socialism. What exists is a phenominal inbalance of the share of wealth. Too few have too much and too many have too little. It is imperative that the balane is addressed. I do not think that humanity has a snow flake in hell's chance because of the unsustainable use of resources. In my mind, capitalism in direct parallel to globilisation, has become unchecked and out of control because there is no international ethic when it comes to banking and finance so the mega rich exploit every avenue to hold on to their wealth - the very wealth derived from ordinary people.
In countries where the taxation system is fairer (I did not say Fair), the greater population do much better.
Read the Spirit Level - I doubt any of the right wing protagonists would because they would immediately dismiss the book as lefty propoganda but it isn't and it has huge relevance.
Note the smiley next to Utopia, but seriously, I would love to see a proper financially viable and realsitic plan or coherent and workable set of policies form someone like you who advocates 'a third way' that is better than what we've got. Otherwise what's the point knocking the current system if there is no viable alternative?
The ball's in your court Pinno."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Whoopsarran77 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Give the man some credit even if you disagree with his views - he generates a good bit of debate
And in this case he has got a few good points (IMO) if you can look past his own situation and play the ball rather than the man.
Was this your 6,000th post :roll:
:P "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That isn't really logical, it would mean that at any point in history, in any country we have the best socio-economic system in place otherwise there would be another one in place. That clearly isn't true as there have been some very poor socio-economic systems in place with much scope for improvement, eg the implementation of communism in USSR.Stevo 666 wrote:Not blinkered, just pragmatic. I've argued several times that the current set up isn't perfect but its the best we've got - if it wasn't there'd be another system in place. QED.
I think that what all economic systems suffer from is the disruptive influence of the inequitable distribution of wealth combined with the propensity of money to follow money, ie the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As the divide widens the rich have to wield their political power, derived from their economic power, to prevent social disorder chaotically redistributing wealth. However, eventually, either through a diminution of their economic power, or by the the gap between rich and poor growing too large, revolution does take place and wealth is redistributed, eg France in 1790s.
We need economic systems that continually recycle wealth, ie tax systems that prevent the accumulation of too much wealth as this prevents 1) the divisions becoming too pronounced between rich and poor and 2) the rich wielding too much economic power, to subvert political institutions to their own will. I would say we also need open economic systems that encourage wealth creation, but ones that encourage communal wealth creation not individual wealth as the individual is never solely responsible for the creation of value that leads to economic gain. (I would hold up companies like Mondragon and John Lewis and models that we should encourage across our economies)
Personally, I think we have entered a dangerous phase where we have removed the regulation on the super rich, or where, as you said, capital has evaded state regulation through virtual transfer from one jurisdiction to another. I think up to the 1980s (Reagan and Thatcher dismantling of the Post War socio-economic system) the West had a strong taxation system that helped prevent the formation of an economic elite with sufficient power to grab the reigns of political power. Now we are seeing governments across the world govern less for the sake of the people and more for those elites.0 -
VTech wrote:.... your wrong on another count, I don't dislike you, why would I ?
Once again, contradicting yourself.VTech wrote:Your the epitome of everything I hate in a man.
Are you a liar, a good old fashioned idiot or (as I suspect and you have given us plenty of examples) just full of sh!t.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
MattC59 wrote:
But you are, I dislike what you are about, same as nathancom, shloppy etc etc.
That doesn't mean I hate you.
Your letting the "I want to fight vetch" part of you get ahead of the "I don't actually have anything to day or add to this debate" part which in turn makes you look a fool.
Calling me a liar only makes you look even more a fool because wether I was or wasn't, it is similar to a school bully who hits kids on the playground instead of trying to reason with them.
Having said that, I really doubt you would bully me in real life but thats another debate we should fight over ?
This is many pages and countless posts old now and although I have added greatly with my points, you have awarded little to the cause except wan-ten idiocy which although makes me chuckle, doesn't add weight to your stance.Living MY dream.0 -
You have added nothing but mental drool0
-
Children, children - you realise that this could be an interesting discussion if it wasn't for your squabbling and infantile insults, don't you?
Why not contribute with some dialogue? VTech may or may not be full of sh*t, but at least the sh*t is relevant to the topic. The pettiness is getting a little tedious.0 -
VTech wrote:MattC59 wrote:
But you are, I dislike what you are about, same as nathancom, shloppy etc etc.
That doesn't mean I hate you.
Then you don't understand the language that you use.
Your letting the "I want to fight vetch" part of you get ahead of the "I don't actually have anything to day or add to this debate" part which in turn makes you look a fool.
I didn't intend to contribute, and you'll notice that I haven't. I was just pointing out to everyone that it's difficult to argue with an idiot. (Go on say it......)
Calling me a liar only makes you look even more a fool because wether I was or wasn't, it is similar to a school bully who hits kids on the playground instead of trying to reason with them.
I didn't call you a liar, I asked you whether you were one. I actually said that I suspect you were full of sh!t. It's written above check.
Having said that, I really doubt you would bully me in real life but thats another debate we should fight over ?
This is many pages and countless posts old now and although I have added greatly with my points, you have awarded little to the cause except wan-ten idiocy which although makes me chuckle, doesn't add weight to your stance.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Not blinkered, just pragmatic. I've argued several times that the current set up isn't perfect but its the best we've got - if it wasn't there'd be another system in place. QED.pinarello001 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
You are blinkered...
Note the smiley next to Utopia, but seriously, I would love to see a proper financially viable and realsitic plan or coherent and workable set of policies form someone like you who advocates 'a third way' that is better than what we've got. Otherwise what's the point knocking the current system if there is no viable alternative?
The ball's in your court Pinno.
Nathancon beat me to it and TBH, put it better than I would have done. The ball is back in your court once you have read what he said.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Nope, because he hasn't set out a workable alternative in anywhere near enough detail forpeople to decide whether this is the breakthrough that has eluded civilised society for generations. But I'll be happy to reply to what he has said while you think up something that might stand up scrutiny - have go, please....pinarello001 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Not blinkered, just pragmatic. I've argued several times that the current set up isn't perfect but its the best we've got - if it wasn't there'd be another system in place. QED.pinarello001 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:ugo.santalucia wrote:Mr Goo wrote:Until their is a sea change in worldwide society and economics then there will always be this argument.
You are blinkered...
Note the smiley next to Utopia, but seriously, I would love to see a proper financially viable and realsitic plan or coherent and workable set of policies form someone like you who advocates 'a third way' that is better than what we've got. Otherwise what's the point knocking the current system if there is no viable alternative?
The ball's in your court Pinno.
Nathancon beat me to it and TBH, put it better than I would have done. The ball is back in your court once you have read what he said."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Nope, because he hasn't set out a workable alternative in anywhere near enough detail for people to decide whether this is the breakthrough that has eluded civilised society for generations. But I'll be happy to reply to what he has said while you think up something that might stand up scrutiny - have go, please....
He's suggested employee ownership. That's a workable alternative, as anyone who rides an Orbea could tell you.0 -
OK, I'll take some of these points individually.
Glad you agree that Soviet style communism was a disaster. Short term these systems can come in when tipping points are reached, but they don't tend to stand the test of time. Over the longer term, capitalism, or marcantilism as it was a few hundred years ago, has done. The success of capitalism is what allows you and me to sit in comfort and argue the merits of it over the internet - in some countries which have the more redistributive systems you disappear for complaining. Even in China, which is socially communist, the government has had to resort to capitalism to keep themselves in power. And look how they have improved.nathancom wrote:That isn't really logical, it would mean that at any point in history, in any country we have the best socio-economic system in place otherwise there would be another one in place. That clearly isn't true as there have been some very poor socio-economic systems in place with much scope for improvement, eg the implementation of communism in USSR.
Revolution is highly unlikely to happen here - poverty and suffering in late 18th century France is not comparable to 21st Century UK. When was the last revolution of that sort in a first world country?nathancom wrote:I think that what all economic systems suffer from is the disruptive influence of the inequitable distribution of wealth combined with the propensity of money to follow money, ie the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As the divide widens the rich have to wield their political power, derived from their economic power, to prevent social disorder chaotically redistributing wealth. However, eventually, either through a diminution of their economic power, or by the the gap between rich and poor growing too large, revolution does take place and wealth is redistributed, eg France in 1790s.
Lots of people and companies do get rich in the current system but why is that bad? People need have the chance to do better for themselves without the prospect of the state taking it all off them - if that happens, the incentive to work hard and do well fades away. Under the highly redistributive system you seem to be promoting, why would an entrepreneur take risks and work hard if they're going to get the money confiscated and they end up no better off than someone who takes a totally undemanding job - or does not work at all? The problem with socialist systems is that logically lots of people will take that view and the wealth creators do not become wealth creators. If everyone is taking it easy expecting other people to work hard and pay large amounts of tax, the system collapses when there is nobody to work hard and pay the tax. Human nature - you need the incentives for success for everyone else to benefit.
Also dispute that the poor get poorer - the benefits system and other 'safety nets' like the minimum wage have become more generous in recent years. That's why the tax bill keeps going up for people who work hard.
How do you encourage wealth creation without giving those people and companies that create the wealth adequate reward? Sorry, goes against human nature and for that reason will not work.nathancom wrote:We need economic systems that continually recycle wealth, ie tax systems that prevent the accumulation of too much wealth as this prevents 1) the divisions becoming too pronounced between rich and poor and 2) the rich wielding too much economic power, to subvert political institutions to their own will. I would say we also need open economic systems that encourage wealth creation, but ones that encourage communal wealth creation not individual wealth as the individual is never solely responsible for the creation of value that leads to economic gain. (I would hold up companies like Mondragon and John Lewis and models that we should encourage across our economies).
- See my France example above.
- Have a look at the UK in the 1970's - pretty redistributive with nationalised industries, company tax rates at 50% and personal tax rates at 83% (98% if you were living off investment income). The results - the decline of many industries as labour politians proved to be incredibly bad business managers (British Leyland anyone?), unions thinking they ran the country and strikes being the norm, power cuts, inflation at 26%, massive 'brain drain' and the ultimate humiliation of Dennis Healey having to go cap in hand to the IMF for a bail out :evil: Note the link between stupidly high tax rates and needing a bail out....The UK then was the Greece of the 1970s - economic basket case. Why? Redistributive socialist policies. Some people don't learn.
See above re incentives and human nature - prevent people from having the chance of accumulating and you remove the incentives to create the wealth in the first place.
- I think it was Churchill who said that in capitalism the rewards are dividend unevenly, but with socialism the misery is equally distributed. Name some countries that has the redistributive policies you describe and is doing well on a national and individual level.
- John Lewis is just a partnership, albeit a pretty good one. Not fundamentally different from firms of accountants, lawyers, or investment banks were back in the 80's.
- Capital has not escaped regulation, it just moves to where it can be used most efficiently. Real live example: in the Group where I work, the effective tax rate on profits in our UK companies is around 23%. In France is it 86% - yes, 86%. We have money to invest to create new jobs - where do you think we will invest?nathancom wrote:Personally, I think we have entered a dangerous phase where we have removed the regulation on the super rich, or where, as you said, capital has evaded state regulation through virtual transfer from one jurisdiction to another. I think up to the 1980s (Reagan and Thatcher dismantling of the Post War socio-economic system) the West had a strong taxation system that helped prevent the formation of an economic elite with sufficient power to grab the reigns of political power. Now we are seeing governments across the world govern less for the sake of the people and more for those elites. France has priced itself out of the market and gets nothing - UK takes practical view and gets the investment, the jobs, and the taxes that flow from that. Go figure.
- Regulation has increased not decreased, it has increased - in my line of work I see a continual torrent or regulation from numerous Governments aimed at taxing and regulating companies and individuals. They see companies and the rich as sources of funding.
- The west did not have a strong taxation system before Thatcher and Reagan - see my points above about needing bail outs etc. The UK was a basket case because of those policies.
I don't disagree that it is a good thing to raise living standards but the right way is to increase opportunity, not to confiscate money from other and hand it out. Keep taxes reasonable and workable and regulation sensible: business will come and invest, jobs and opportunities will be created and people will benefit. So what if there are some rich people around: you or I have a chance to be one of them if we want to be. You might say its still uneven but that's life - it ain't fair and there are always winners and losers.
And going back to my question to Pinarello - if you think there's a better way spell it out in detail. All you've given us is your perceived problems with the curent syststem and a few very general aspirations. Tell us how you would do it better in enough detail for us to decide if it's worthwhile, or else why complain in the absence of a real life workable alternative?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's pretty common these days and you don't need to be a partnership. All of the companies I've worked for since the 90's have offered me employee ownership through share schemes etc. It's not an alternative, it's already quite normal and there are tax breaks on offer for doing more of it.johnfinch wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Nope, because he hasn't set out a workable alternative in anywhere near enough detail for people to decide whether this is the breakthrough that has eluded civilised society for generations. But I'll be happy to reply to what he has said while you think up something that might stand up scrutiny - have go, please....
He's suggested employee ownership. That's a workable alternative, as anyone who rides an Orbea could tell you.
And why should entrepreneurs who IME take massive financial and personal risks and work hard, simply give away stakes in their company to Tom Dick and Harry? Unless Tom Dick and Harry can actually make a difference to their business. You take the risk, you get the benefit. If it goes pear shaped, you lose your shirt."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
@Stevo.
You use words like re-distribution and confiscation without mentioning Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany.
All countries that have mixed economies and have a very high standard of living. High wage/High cost societies. Businesses, entrepreneurs exist in these countries and pay their fair share of taxes. Investment in every facet of Scandinavian life is high.
China? How can you cite China as a system that works? Internally, they have fundamental humanitarian issues. Externally, they are sucking up resources like there is no tomorrow with no moral ethic. They are happy to work alongside Mugabe and other despots.
God knows what the real environmental cost both internally and externally are being wreaked.
Detail an alternative? I have:
Close all tax loopholes
Close all tax havens
Stop the idiotic Non-dom status of individuals. If you have a British passport, regardless of how long you stay in the UK, you should contribute and be taxable on any income derived from activities domestically.
This has to be backed up with an international code where individuals cannot use off shore bank accounts. I would have the Swiss and the Cayman Islands for example open up. No longer should countries be allowed to harbour the activities of individuals or corporations.
The elite do not pay enough tax. I am not asking to stifle hard work or enterprise, I am asking those who should pay, pay.
Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
The current system of capitalism is unchecked, inbalanced, exploitative and environmentally, it is an apocalypse waiting to happen.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Eventually.pinarello001 wrote:Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
It only took 5 pages of posts to return to the point that real poverty is abroad, not in the UK.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Eventually.pinarello001 wrote:Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
It only took 5 pages of posts to return to the point that real poverty is abroad, not in the UK.
I said it many pages ago and was ridiculed for it.
I also said we should have a system where the big companies should pay tax and was ridiculed for it.
I'm still going to buy a nathancom, mattx59 and maybe a schloppyseconds for my pleasure.Living MY dream.0 -
pinarello001 wrote:Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan.
To be fair, they are making cheap and nasty stuff for companies like Armani as well. Most of the posh stuff comes from the same factories as the cheap stuff but with insane mark ups. They just use the people who can stitch more neatly to do the designer gear. Sadly, of course, this exploitation of the affluent but stupid is not benefiting the workers either........Faster than a tent.......0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Eventually.pinarello001 wrote:Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
It only took 5 pages of posts to return to the point that real poverty is abroad, not in the UK.
How many homeless people are there in the UK?
And how many pensioners die every winter because they are forced to choose between eating and heating?0 -
johnfinch wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Eventually.pinarello001 wrote:Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
It only took 5 pages of posts to return to the point that real poverty is abroad, not in the UK.
How many homeless people are there in the UK?
And how many pensioners die every winter because they are forced to choose between eating and heating?
This is the point, its not, I repeat NOT "real" poverty.
Thats scare tactics by the energy suppliers or bad luck in the case of many homeless.
The energy suppliers can't cut you off even though they threaten too which makes the vulnerable do things they shouldn't.
There is no real homeless in the UK and by that I mean people FORCED to be homeless without ANY option otherwise available.
To try and say we have issues other countries do is a terrible thing as it demeanours the real poverty on earth.Living MY dream.0 -
madasahattersley wrote:VTech wrote:johnfinch wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Eventually.pinarello001 wrote:Whilst we in the west sit in relative affluence and our standards of living on the whole go up, millions, nay billions of people exist in poverty or are trapped in sweat shops making cheap and nasty crap for companies like Peacocks and Matalan. There is a global price for the extravagent lifestyles of the west and the rise of the super rich.
It only took 5 pages of posts to return to the point that real poverty is abroad, not in the UK.
How many homeless people are there in the UK?
And how many pensioners die every winter because they are forced to choose between eating and heating?
This is the point, its not, I repeat NOT "real" poverty.
Thats scare tactics by the energy suppliers or bad luck in the case of many homeless.
The energy suppliers can't cut you off even though they threaten too which makes the vulnerable do things they shouldn't.
There is no real homeless in the UK and by that I mean people FORCED to be homeless without ANY option otherwise available.
To try and say we have issues other countries do is a terrible thing as it demeanours the real poverty on earth.
You've obviously had a pretty sheltered life if you think any of what you've just written is true. Poverty is poverty no matter what country you live in. Just because someone else in another country has less money than you, so what? If you don't have a house or clothes then yes you are poor, no 2 ways about it. Even if you do have a house of course you can still be poor. Never read such nonsense in my life.
OK, imagine this, your in a house with your 3 kids in the UK, you can't feed them, they are starving to death.
What do you do ?
A) let them die
take them to ANY hospital or ANY police station and they WILL be fed and so will you.
Now imagine Somalia, your in a hut with your 3 kids, you can't feed them, they are starving to death.
What do you do ?
A) ..............
We have some hardship in the UK, we don't have real, unadulterated poverty.
We have laws preventing suppliers of energy from cutting you off for christs sake.Living MY dream.0 -
Just to add on, here is the definition as listed on wiki.
Poverty is scarcity, dearth, or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.[1] Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Relative poverty is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people live
I don't want anyone thinking I do not realise issues are here in our country, I feel desperate for those in need and would do anything to assist but I just don't think we can even mildly compare what we have to the global scale.Living MY dream.0 -
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.0
-
Poverty = Poverty is scarcity, dearth, or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.[1] Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Relative poverty is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people liveLiving MY dream.0
-
madasahattersley wrote:My dad lost his job, his house, and his mental health, while accumulating 000s of unavoidable debt a couple of years ago. Couldn't afford to raise us or even pay a minimum amount of child maintenance. If you told him (or me for that matter) face to face that actually things aren't that bad, and that because we're not living in a cardboard box in Jaipur it's not 'poverty' and things aren't that bad, while rolling along in your nice car or in your nice house then you would get a good decking.
Would you say to a man dying of AIDS with no available treatment in a hut by the side of a dirty road in Mozambique "This isn't so bad, pull yourself together. Why, in other parts of the world there are people who don't even have huts! No such thing as poverty in this country."
So, taking your example, if your Dad had been given the opportunity to trade lives with your man in Jaipur, what would he have done? And if the man in Jaipur had been given the opportunity to trade lives with your Dad, what would he likely have chosen?
I'm not saying it sounds like your Dad has had a great time of things (of course he hasn't) but that's all Vtech is getting at. Look on Wikipedia for the list of life expectancies by country. There's a few where I'm already past the average life expectancy and I'm not that old!Faster than a tent.......0
