BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 18 May 08 - 02:23 PM

I see you have both responded to but a single one of the points I re-raised , (and,interestingly, the same one - namely the one not about US but but about NOT-US).

Imf(airly)io, you are both under an illusion if you believe that the millionaires simply were given their millions by alleged 'old millionaires'.

That is either lack of knowledge, or re-writing history, (a practice not solely indulged in by the Left). The correct information is out there a-plenty.

Consequently, I notice that of all the points I repeated, all the rest has been ignored again.

Btw, apparently the true figure of the proportion of food thrown away in the UK is actually about 20%.

The 'fact' that people in the UK throw away is one third turns out to be true only when such things as vegetable peelings and bones were included in the calculation.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Just to get some sort of reality check here a question for Akenaton and Ivor:

"How many Russians were members of the Communist Party"

Population was 293,047,571 in 1991. In 1989 the Party had 19,000,000 members. That is roughly 6.48% of the population Ake, Ivor.

Now tell us do you think that they were treated the same as everybody else in Russia, or did Party Membership carry with it enormous privileges - Animal Farm, Ivor "All animals are equal except that some animals are more equal than others".

As Don T says the millionaires were already there, Lenin, Stalin, et al, they just replaced the Russian Tsarist Aristocracy with their version of it - "Workers of the World Unite" indeed - Complete and utter load of bollocks if you ask me and they all knew it from day one.

Yet even with all those gullible little epsilons beavering away night and day the system they worked under failed to feed them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:28 AM

"Or the connection between the introduction of Capitalism in Russia and China and the explosive emergence of a load of millionaires/billionaires."

Disingenuous comment of the month, without a doubt.

The millionaires were always there, but they didn't advertise. Do you REALLY think the Politburo, and the Chinese equivalent lived on potato soup, or a handful of rice??

The millions just got transferred, and those newly rich are probably paying wages to their workers which, though low by our standards, are more than they could have DREAMED about under communism.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:14 AM

Still so many points just get plain ignored.

That is one basic way the talkboards I know about, function.

e.g.

Without Labour, stuff would not be bought. So the better they're paid, the more they'd buy, and the more profits would be made.

While the point about Labour as a cost has been addressed, and justifies, tis one hasn't been.


Again, the point that people are under the illusion that buying/ consuming brings satisfaction.


or that the system finds ways to keep consuming going. My example was CDs, the introduction of which led people to buy what they already had all over again.

Or that fashion and fads are other ways to keep consuming going.

Or that shareholder strength is a driver for growth of consumption.

Or that if the poor cannot be lifted in a rich country now, what do the circumstances have to be when they will?

or why we had a 'trickle-down' theory and not a 'cascade-down' theory.

Or the connection between the introduction of Capitalism in Russia and China and the explosive emergence of a load of millionaires/billionaires.

Teri said advertising doesn't get people to buy more than they need or want.

Breathtaking.

If you all really think we don't know the importance of consuming to our society, and nobody has forced the point on us, tell us what you think the consequences would be if everyone no longer found mortgages, more clothes, cars, holidays, replacement kitchens, insurance, more food than for survival, drink, DIY, gardening stuff, the latest gadgets, if we no longer found them necessary for our happiness or satisfaction?

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 18 May 08 - 07:08 AM

Akenaton, have a really good read of this:

"Capitalism supplies employment, employment supplies income, income gives the power to purchase what we need or what we WANT. Capitalism by employing us produces that which we may need or want to purchase.

What we do with that purchasing power is OUR responsibility, and we can be as greedy, or as frugal as WE choose.

Nobody forces us to overconsume, or to waste resources. The supply is put in front of us, and WE make our own decisions.

There are "isms" which dictate what we may or may not, and in some cases what we must or must not, do. Capitalism is one of the very few that does not, so if we want to blame somebody for our excesses, I'm afraid we must look closer to home for the culprit,.....Perhaps a mirror?" - Don(Wyziwyg)T

Don has got it summed up there perfectly.

By the bye you don't obtain a "society" off-the-shelf - people make whatever society they CHOSE to live in - Oh Dear there is that thing called personal choice cropping up again.

As for your: "Today we have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them, an ever increasing army of old people who have ceased to be of any use to the system and a hindrance to their families....if families still exist!

A workforce holding down multiple jobs in an effort to pay credit charges and morgage payments to the later day outlaws of the banking industry."

We have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them Akenaton because the so-called "Baby Boomer" generation turned out to be by and large absolutely useless parents, nothing to do with with what was on offer in the shops. The loss of "family" again down to personal choice, the halcyon days you hark back to were governed by belief in education, respect for education, people knew and acknowledged what their responsibilities were, they did not shirk duty, they had respect for themselves and each other, they possessed that vital tool for living called self-discipline. They did not endlessly hammer on about what their rights were, they did not always adopt the line of least resistance in order to take the easy way out.

The circumstance that drives people to hold down multiple low pay minimum wage jobs was brought about by a total disregard and disrespect for education and personal expectation far outstripping the personal ability to achieve. Everything that can be has been dumbed down so that everybody is an "achiever" even if the achievement is worthless. What the country needs are mathematicians, scientists, doctors, nurses and engineers, not thousands of basket case degrees in social studies.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "Capitalism" Akenaton, your, "Well, i don't think we should be too hard on ourselves" sums up perfectly what is wrong - Somebody else's fault again - grow up, high time a hell of a lot of people did that in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:59 PM

Its not so much that everybody knew their place - its more that it was a pretty shitty place for most of us. No matter what the state of ones knowledge on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 17 May 08 - 03:44 PM

Yes Teribus there was good and bad in that old society

Today we have a whole generation of lost children afloat in a word with no place for them, an ever increasing army of old people who have ceased to be of any use to the system and a hindrance to their families....if families still exist!

A workforce holding down multiple jobs in an effort to pay credit charges and morgage payments to the later day outlaws of the banking industry.
I bet most would chose to trade their slavery for a place in a real society...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 17 May 08 - 05:43 AM

"I remember as a child, a society which offered status as a measure of worth, not money.
Doctors, public officials, policemen, builders were given a certain status in that society, money did not enter the equation to any extent, as all in that society we relatively poor.
The society worked pretty well, as every soul was made to feel that they were contributing in one way or another." - Akenaton

Ah yes Akenaton those good old days when everyone knew their place - far, far better than today eh?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 06:04 PM

Well my friend, as you say we tend to disagree about the definitions, but if it comes to changing the status quo, we'll BOTH need to do quite a bit of rethinking to find an alternative that IS sustainable.

It's the kids and Grandkids I worry about.

The worst I have to fear is that I'll wind up as fertiliser when they have to plant food crops in the cemetery.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 05:18 PM

Well, i don't think we should be too hard on ourselves Don, bombarded as we are about the sorts of things we should buy to make our lives complete.
The message of Capitalism is insidious and designed to appeal to our baser instincts ...I will agree with you there..its a powerful message and will take many generation to wash from our psyche.

Then again maybe it wont take so long.
I remember as a child, a society which offered status as a measure of worth, not money.
Doctors, public officials, policemen, builders were given a certain status in that society, money did not enter the equation to any extent, as all in that society we relatively poor.
The society worked pretty well, as every soul was made to feel that they were contributing in one way or another.

To day money is God, and I suppose you are right we invented God; but Capitalism was the catalyst.

The crux of my argument is that lifestyle supported by Capitalism is utterly unsustainable...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:22 PM

Capitalism does not actively encourage or discourage waste, greed, or any other evil, Ake.

This is the point where I feel your cart is being pushed rather than pulled.

Capitalism supplies employment, employment supplies income, income gives the power to purchase what we need or what we WANT. Capitalism by employing us produces that which we may need or want to purchase.

What we do with that purchasing power is OUR responsibility, and we can be as greedy, or as frugal as WE choose.

Nobody forces us to overconsume, or to waste resources. The supply is put in front of us, and WE make our own decisions.

There are "isms" which dictate what we may or may not, and in some cases what we must or must not, do. Capitalism is one of the very few that does not, so if we want to blame somebody for our excesses, I'm afraid we must look closer to home for the culprit,.....Perhaps a mirror?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:06 PM

Agree with you about waste Don, but surely even you must admit rthat waste is openly encouraged by Capitalism.
(Supermarket offers....the throwaway society .....chinese imports.)
Buy , buy, buy.
Capitalism also needs large centres of population, to produce the junk and to consume the junk

But thats only a couple of facets. Teribus accuses me of negativity, but I honestly see nothing in this system to be optimistic about

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:51 AM

Notwithstanding the above, you are right on one point. We WILL have to control population. No doubt about that at all.


BUT HOW!!

I suppose since every third child born is Chinese, we should all have no more than two.

That's what I did, anyway.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:45 AM

If you take the trouble to check out the true situation, you will find that in fact there is sufficient food produced in this world for everyone alive today to have what he/she needs.

There are two obvious reasons why this doesn't happen, and one less obvious.

1. Distribution. The bulk of the surplus food is produced in and by countries which already have enough, and nobody is offering to pay to distribute the spare stuff to Biafra, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and the like.

2. Waste. Only this week, it has been reported that UK residents waste up to one third of the food they buy, a disgusting state of affairs which, I would guess is equalled by US citizens, if not exceeded, and probably less than equalled in countries such as Canada and Australia, where I feel there is a less wasteful culture (I'm making an educate guess on that).


The less obvious cause is foreign aid, or rather the way in which it is supplied. Give a man who is starving a sack of seed, and HE WILL EAT IT!!

Of course he will.

Feed his family for a year and send him off to college to learn how to produce food. When he comes back, feed him for a further year and supply seed as well. Tell him you will buy his food surplus at harvest time and watch him work.

Of course he will.

Expensive, but simple, and when we reach the stage (as we will) where WE need food from him we'll have it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST
Date: 16 May 08 - 05:37 AM

........'unable to feed ourselves......', no chance, GM will solve all our problems - not!

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:36 AM

Don't know about the Cheer Leaders uniform Ake - but I do note that you still demonstrate that you do not have one single constructive thought in your head, or at least not one that you can express. Maybe you should consider that instead of the worlds population, because that is a very sorry state to be in indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:16 AM

Sorry Don...I forgot to address your point on population.

It is my opinion, that population has been artifically inflated by modern social/ economic systems.
If this continues we will certainly be unable to feed ourselves in a very short period of time....(Capitalism/Communism unsustainable in foodstuffs). Not to mention water, energy,minerals etc,etc.

Would it not be more sensible to look at population growth critically, rather than fight an unwinnable war with the consequences...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 16 May 08 - 03:04 AM

Well Don ...It seems we must agree to disagree once again, but I will say that it is always a pleasure to discuss these matters with you, as you are thoughtful and open minded (for a Tory) :0)

Perhaps we can agree that if Capitalism continues and expands as in China , India, (Africa?) there is very little hope for humanity, the environment, or the wasteful lifestyle to which we have become accustomed?
In fact, if the Capitalist ethos is adopted worldwide, "Global War" will be the vision of the future, as massive powers struggle for control of dwindling resources.
PS....If you know the whereabouts of Teribus, please send him on a cheerleaders costume, size XXXXL I know he'll just love it.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:17 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T - 15 May 08 - 04:56 PM

Good post Don very well put.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 04:56 PM

Anyone who has watched a soccer match, and seen the antics of some of its followers, might suggest that we LIVE in a primitive society.

O.K. That's a flippant response, but to take up your point, for sure there have been systems that worked better than capitalism IN THEIR TIME, times when the concept of "Capital" did not exist.

None of those could cope with the logistics of a population such as we have now. They all relied on the fact of having an abundance of resources in relation to population which allowed everyone to help himself. That situation no longer pertains, even if you do away with the concept of ownership.

I've been accused of coming up with simplistic ideas, but I couldn't hold a candle to the idea of looking at Aboriginal society as a possible model for todays world.

Any further comment from me will, I imagine be met with the usual "you are looking at it from the capitalist's point of view", so I will confine myself to one last thought, and it's this. It only appears to you that I am looking at it from the capitalist point of view because YOU are looking at it from the labour (small l) point of view, and in fact I am labour, but I know that it is Capital that provides me with work. Perhaps it is YOU that needs to reconsider?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 08 - 03:11 PM

"I repeat, you need to know, before you destroy the status quo, what you will put in its place, and please don't say anarchism. The last thing anyone needs, is to find that the biggest bloke in the area can walk into their house and help himself."

Don...I think you are using the Capitalist's measureing stick.
It does not have to be like that, there have been many societies throughout history who have been much more successful than present day Capitalism.

A good example was the native American culture.
A culture based on conserving the natural habitat and involving a fine system of "local govt".

Of course I don't suggest that we beome nomadic hunter gatherers again, but I believe that the secret of our survival lies in the study and understanding of primitive societies...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: mayomick
Date: 15 May 08 - 10:03 AM

People wonder why Ken rejoined Labour . It couldn't have realy done him much good to get an endorsement from Brown ,but whatever else you say about Livingstone he's always been a smart operator . Possible scenario:
Gordon Brown's popularity continues to plummet . Boris makes a mess out of the mayorship and everybody starts to look back to the halcyon days of the Livingstone era .
Livingstone wins a bye election and becomes the new MP for Brent .
Brown resigns leadership of Labour Party after losing general election to Cameron. Enter the new leader of Her Majesty's Opposition .

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:38 AM

As we don't keep our energy, food, and fuel in osts, I'm sure you will have worked out that should read costs.

I lost my last sentence, which was:-

The unemployment figures would, in that case, have been significantly, and disastrously, increased

DT

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:33 AM

"We have had a relatively strike-free 10 - 15 years since the Tories brought in anti-union legislation that our brave , bold labour government has done nothing about.

And we still have 1.6 million unemployed, millions hovering around or below the minimum wage, a major still growing housing crisis, the prices of food, housing, oil all rising, and clearly NOT related to strikes in the slightest."


Come on Auto, that's a complete mish-mash of half truth, and fuzzy thinking.

1.6 million unemployed....Historically this country has had around 750,000 unemployed since WW2, who are either workshy, or unemployable. No government in this country has ever solved thst one, nor ever will.

Unemployment, in the Thatcher years DID rise steeply, and that was a regrettable after effect of the Wilson/Callaghan period 1973-1979, which included devaluation of the pound, and inflation rising to an all time high of more than 20% which the Tories inherited in 79.

Since New Labour won in 2007, inheriting an inflation rate of 2.5% approx. they have been "reducing" unemployment largely by altering the criteria by which one decides who is unemployed ("He's not unemployed, he's undergoing retraining"), which of course removes many from the "unemployed" list, while we still have to support them from our taxes.

Posterity may well agree with my view that New Labour are chiefly notable (not able) for their ability to move goalposts.


As to Oil prices, they are dependent on events in foreign parts, over which our government has no control, as in fact is the housing crisis, due to the greed mainly of US banks.

Rising oil price inevitably means high osts for energy, food, and fuel.

The presence or absence of the right to disrupt, er, sorry, I mean strike has no bearing whatsoever on these current problems, but I would certainly claim that, without the curtailment of trade union power, we would have many fewer British companies still solvent today.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 May 08 - 09:04 AM

Given that you are correct about what are the current ills of the human race, Ake, you have signally failed to explain why, if what you say about capitalism is true, all other forms of government suffer the same problems.

If you wish to prove an argument of cause and effect, you really need to examine the position of the horse vis-a-vis the cart.

Capitalism is certainly very imperfect, but I would submit that nothing else has worked as well up to now.

I repeat, you need to know, before you destroy the status quo, what you will put in its place, and please don't say anarchism. The last thing anyone needs, is to find that the biggest bloke in the area can walk into their house and help himself.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 15 May 08 - 03:01 AM

Too late to do anything constructive about Capitalism T.

As an operative in the building industry, I realise that when the cracks go right to the foundations, demolition is th only option.

BTW...I dont see Anarchism as "negative". At the very least it gives a vision that humanity and the planet will survive in the long term.
Nobody suggests that transforming society will be easy or pleasant, our five minutes (in real time) of Capitalism has left us all twisted, we no longer value the things which make life worth living, but prefer to inhabit a crazy hybrid of Disneyland and the House of Horrors.

Just to keep on keeping on with a system which promotes Global war and Global terror as a means of control, a system which causes a huge divide between two sectors of society in the quality of life that they can expect; and leading ultimately to the complete destruction of the environment which every species on this earth requires to survive, is negativity in the extreme....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:09 AM

Oh, No Ake, not in the least, I realise exactly what you are, a pathetic little armchair anarchist who can do nothing but knock. You haven't a single constructive thought in your entire being.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 08 - 02:51 AM

Yet again Teribus confuses my hatred of Capitalism, with some notion that I would like to see a Eastern bloc style Communist system in its place.

Monochrome or what!!

Teribus...your thinking is still rooted in the "cod war"
Sorry "cold war"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 14 May 08 - 02:44 AM

"in the form of continual reinvention and regeneration, both of which require freedom of thought and expression and above all innovation"

Oh fuck!!....I'm outa here!
Teribus has discovered "politician speak"....Prepare to be engulfed.

Are you a friend of Peter Mandelson by any chance T?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:54 PM

"I think it was Marx who said that Capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction" - Akenaton

Well we could always look at a couple of "Marxist" countries and judge by the queues of people hammering on the door to get in and escape all this destruction:

- North Korea
- Zimbabwe
- Cuba

There again we can look at all those countries that "Uncle Joe" brought into the light of "Marxist benevolence". I mean that if what Ake says is true, when actually allowed free choice, what did the peoples of those countries opt for.

Another way of looking at what Marx said would be that Capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction in the form of continual reinvention and regeneration, both of which require freedom of thought and expression and above all innovation, all facets of life that are an anathema to the prophets of Marx and Lenin.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 08 - 03:33 PM

Well Guest...If you have a corrupt system, heavily biased towards one sector of society, is it any wonder that folks play the system.

I think it was Marx who said that Capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction...and those seeds are just a poppin' up everywhere these days.......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: GUEST,Firth
Date: 13 May 08 - 05:24 AM

No such thing as poverty in the UK. If lazy parents who receive the massive benefit cheques drank less there would be food on the table. Better still if they went and got a job like the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 13 May 08 - 04:32 AM

I don't go to the bank, I use online banking. Much simpler.

I would rather use a card at the checkout. far less hassle. Always hated cheques and if I use 6 a year now, thats it.

Dunno why you are whinging Akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 08 - 03:00 AM

Ever stood at a supermarket checkout with your tenner in your hand waiting to pay for your purchases, while the twenty or so sheep in front of you wrestle with their debit or credit cards.

Do you ever ponder on how wonderful "progress" is as the chechout machine spits out each card, or the assistant queries the signature?

Do you ever wonder if this miracle of technology has been imposed on us because we really "need" it, or because the capitalists who run the supermarkets and banks can con more money out of us in useless services and in the process, "slim down their workforce and become more competitive"

Ever noticed how the service provided to customers by banks gets worse and worse while charges keep increasing.
They are only interested in robbing credit customers nowadays.

Well, I dont "need" their services, but due to the way this Capitalist society is run, I am forced to use them.

Just another example from millions...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:01 AM

Don

Your post can't get around the fundamental contradiction. Employers have to keep wages down to compete; simultaneously, they worry about sales not continuing to grow to satisfy their shareholders , and themselves.

So they look to the Nanny State to help them out by providing benefits, like Working Tax Credit, which saves the employers having to pay them in the form of wages.

And then have the gall to complain that government is on their back.

We have had a relatively strike-free 10 - 15 years since the Tories brought in anti-union legislation that our brave , bold labour government has done nothing about.

And we still have 1.6 million unemployed, millions hovering around or below the minimum wage, a major still growing housing crisis, the prices of food, housing, oil all rising, and clearly NOT related to strikes in the slightest.

But I repeat myself. Seemingly i have to.

I have lkeft above any numbers of points not yet addressed.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Rasener
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:52 AM

Maybe the heading should have been

UK stikes, more poverty.

I agree with your comments Don.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:51 AM

Good post Don T

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:26 PM

"My point about wages being kept down (to make business competitive) conflicting with the need for them to rise (to buy to keep the economy growing) is one that's been just ignored."


Not ignored, T.    It's part and parcel of the US & THEM scenario.

Somewhere in the discussion there is a point of compromise which gives the workers the maximum they can have without destroying the supplier of their jobs, and gives the company the highest profits it can make without having to deal with industrial action which may result in the destruction of the supplier of the shareholders' income.

The problem is that both sides have to be looking, for that point to be reached.

If both parties would look at the situstion from the point of view of ENLIGHTENED self interest, both would realise that they are interdependent, and they must all survive or none will survive.

If that is a simplistic viewpoint, so be it. I would rather be the advocate for a simplistic solution which COULD work, than the shop steward watching my members' livelihood going down the tubes because they, and I, refused to budge from an unachievable position.

Remember Arthur Scargill. He took his men back to work with a settlement they could have had a year earlier. In fact they would have been better off, because they would by then have been negotiating the NEXT increase.

So all the bloodshed and bitterness was wasted, and all laid at Thatcher's door. Well, I'm sorry but there were TWO pigheaded idiots involved, and Scargill was one of them. In fact it was he that made it possible for union bargaining power to be broken.

WORKING MAN'S HERO??    NOT REALLY!!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:38 PM

Teribus
You've covered the 'keeping down costs' part of the equation very well.
What is missing is much about wage-rises, to be able to continue buying,[never mind coping with rising prices - wheat, rice, gas, petrol, et cetera.]


Nothing either about the rather unlikely ones who wish to sup from the government, aka you and me - most recently the banks !. Just think; The Banks looking to the "Nanny State" to bail them out after they've ballsed things up. Amazing.

And on Today (BBC premier morning news prog), a businesswoman expected help from the government in order that business could go thru the expensive business of getting greener. She followed up this plea by saying about something else that the government 'a kick up trhe pants'. That's the way to get the gov. to help you out; with a charm offensive.

I-I-I-I, on the other hand, said nothing about getting a hand-out from the gov. Absoltely nothing . [I believe that is an obsession of the right - tho see above for a contradiction.)

I look to employers. Oddly.

Like I assume that market forces will kick in, now that so many immagrants have left again, and fruit will not lie rotting because the pickers. No, wages for fruit-picking will obviously rise. That's how the free market works.

As the banks have discovered.

Meanwhile, ordinary people will be writing-off their credit card debts.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:14 PM

Nothing really worth responding to, other than to make it clear to you that contrary to the shite you write about me, I want to see less government not more ......and no Capitalism at all
As a Scot, I remember a time when rampant Capitalism did not exist.
People made a life for themselves and had a lot of happiness as well as a lot of hard work.

I know you are not a simpleton, so why is it always Capitalism or Communism in your black and white world? Do you not realise that there will have to be alternatives?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:01 PM

Nice wriggle T ....but it doesn't wash, you have made no attempt to answer the point I was making.......and you know why.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:39 AM

time moves on and Australians realise they can carge us what the hell they like for coal - having got Thatchers idiots to dismantle the mining industry, disband the army of expertise, reduce to rubble the factories servicing the heavy industrial machines.

the trouble with simplistic remedies - they appeal to the simple monded who unfortunately are allowed a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:29 AM

"My point about wages being kept down (to make business competitive) conflicting with the need for them to rise (to buy to keep the economy growing) is one that's been just ignored." - Ivor

Has it been ignored Ivor? I thought that I had covered that one. You and your company for your power requirements buy British coal at £250 per ton. Me and my company in direct competition to yours pay £8 per ton for coal from Australia. Number of ways at looking at that disparity Ivor:

- I make 30 times the profit that you do
- I make my product one thirtieth cheaper than you do
- I manufacture thirty times what you do for identical cost

Anyway you look at it you go out of business because you have not controlled your costs. Now you bang on about "labour". The poor ould "workin' class" Hey Ivor if they don't want to work for me they can bugger off and do something else, thats called initiative. Trouble with you and Akenaton you seem to be lost without a Nanny-State to wipe your arses and blow your noses for you from cradle to grave.

And this from Akenaton was priceless:

"You know very well that the Capitalist system does not prosper by providing what people "need".
Do people need an offensive or defensive Nuclear weapons system?
Do people need squadrons of attack aircraft?
Do we need a package holiday industry?
Do we need two or three cars to a family at the expense of a proper public transport system.

Just a few examples from millions..."

Really Ake?
- Well the "Capitalist" system has done a damn sight better job of feeding, clothing and providing employment to its citizens than any alternative system, especially communism. Tell me Akenaton how many West Germans were shot attempting to escape to East Germany?

- "Do people need an offensive or defensive Nuclear weapons system?" Oh yes it guaranteed our freedom from 1945 to 1990, otherwise in 1945 we would have all experienced the joys of living under the sort of regime that Joseph Stalin (One of the greatest mass murderers in history) thought was best.

- "Do people need squadrons of attack aircraft?" Does a country need armed forces? Of course they do, unless of course you wish to live your life as directed by someone else.

- "Do we need a package holiday industry?" You tell me, I don't use it. Does it provide a means that others enjoy? Yes I'd say so. Does it provide holidays in the sun for many, efficiently and at low cost? Yes I'd say so. I'd love to hear what Akenaton's alternative would be, and why we should enjoy that more.

- "Do we need two or three cars to a family at the expense of a proper public transport system." I suppose it depends on how many are in the family and what their requirements are. I also cannot see why owning two or three cars prevents the government, local or national, from providing a proper public transport system. Because people own cars more tax supposedly related to transport is taken in than without there being all those cars

Oh yes I forgot Nanny-State - Please look after me because I am totally incapable - Anything that is wrong in my life is the fault of somebody else - I am not repsonsible for anything in my life I demand that you look after me - Bollocks, get a grip and take charge.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 12 May 08 - 01:56 AM

We need more exx, Ake, but I think terib believes he is right, and that his view makes sense.

I already know that we all arrange what we know in order that it make sense to us.(Gestalts - patterns,shapes,forms). Knowledge that doesn't 'fit', is explained oddly,contortedly, explained away, or, as i've found to be so very common, just ignored (doesn't get on the dial).

My point about wages being kept down (to make business competitive) conflicting with the need for them to rise (to buy to keep the economy growing) is one that's been just ignored.

There are others.

The fact is that most of us do not know how our own society actually wotks (knowledge missing), but we still have to make sense. However much is missing, we still have to make sense; so te picture looks curious to those who know more or different.

it's just know use saying that it doesn't matter how much you know - of course it does. (I just wish I wasn't so ignorant.)

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: akenaton
Date: 11 May 08 - 08:34 PM

But will the supply to this demand be sustainable?
In "developed" countries such as the UK most of what we want, we do not need. We are simply led to believe that we need the huge quantities of junk and junk services provided by the system.

This state of affairs was bad enough when we actually produced things and were relatively solvent.
Now we have reached the point when we have been presented with billions of "monopoly money" from the banks. Money which enables us to keep buying the junk, and which we have no hope of ever repaying!

But what does it matter? Its only a game....and if the Banks get too greedy and collapse, well we'll just Nationalise them. Just till they're back on they're feet of course.

What a fucking joke!

Teribus...I never thought I'd say this, but your posts on this thread prove what a phoney you are. You know very well that the Capitalist system does not prosper by providing what people "need".
Do people need an offensive or defensive Nuclear weapons system?
Do people need squadrons of attack aircraft?
Do we need a package holiday industry?
Do we need two or three cars to a family at the expense of a proper public transport system.

Just a few examples from millions...

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 11 May 08 - 05:21 AM

Worlds population Ivor. Is it growing or decreasing? Are people generally better off now than they were fifty years ago? Have peoples expectations gone up or down?

There is your market Ivor, it has got absolutely nothing to do with "forces" making us "greedy", the increasing worlds population alone will always ensure that there is a demand for whatever people need.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 11 May 08 - 04:40 AM

Teribus,

Yes how can you make somone greedy who isn't already?
What do YOU suppose would happen if people only bought what they had to or really needed?
What do you suppose would happen if EVERYONE was no longer affected by advertising, peer pressure, shareholder-pressure, and were consequently no longer interested in following fashion, getting the latest anything, having big holidays, gave up their car(s),etc.?

You said nobody's ever told you that if we stopped consuming, our civilisation would collapse; later you remind me that I didn't allude to one consequence of shareholder demand - 'job security. increased employment'. So no-one told you, and you've still worked out the basic connection between consumption and employment, if not something more basic.

With all developments in industry, business, technology, you describe as progress. It was recently reported, was it not?, that for all our 'progress', we are no happier; obviously there's progress ,and then there's progress.

Can you really, really not see that quite as much as all these devel rationale is also to keep the wheels turning, and the profits continuing (to grow)? To see it as nothing but about progress , seems to me naive at best, (ingenuous further down the scale).

There are at least a couple of reasons why the rich might be more envious.

Rich people in the business world are competitive.

Firstly, they are in a better position to be competitive, to express/manifest the same competitiveness that has resulted in their wealth. And compete with each other over better, bigger, more expensive everythings you can think of. [Capitalism = whoever has the most shit when they die - wins!!]

So their envy is the other side of the competitive coin.

Secondly they manifest their envy in how far more than enough isn't enough. Why else would someone worth sat more than 33 million, oh ok, 310 million, continue to seek more rather than leave the field to others.

I've already explained how the system keeps us constantly dissatisfied. So see before.

You still don't directly address the contradiction that wages have to be kept under tight control (despite rising prices in many fields), yet the same people have to spend (see above) and keep spending, and spend increasingly (if expenditure doesn't keep rising, the economy is in trouble), and also save, save at a time when millions are already losing ground financially.

To say 1.6 million unemployed is low is a fascinating statement.

You made clear your comparison to say it's low. A lot hangs on a) what comparison you choose, and b) the reason for your choice.

I won't get into the comparison game, simply repeat, in the 5th most powerful economy in the world, and at a time when, allegedly,, we are better off than ever, it seems to me a devastating criticism of our system that we have that many people out of work.

Re Russia and China, it is only what I've gathered from the radio that there are larger numbers of the impoverished, especially in Russia than before the end of the Cold War; it's unarguable that in those two countries, a considerable middle-class has sprung up, and even more, that there has appeared a rash of millionaires there. They have clearly not made their millions in the steady hard-working building-up of a business over 2,3,4 or 5 generations, but within 10 years.

And those examples make it crystal-clear how much the division between rich and poor can be demonstrated NOT to be a law of nature, but a consequence of a human creation. And why the division is a function of the workings of the system, far from being 'rot', is merely an observable Scottish [ :-) ]fact.

best wishes, Teribus

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 May 08 - 02:52 PM

so where would you say you were teribus on this evolutionary ladder?

One of life's aristocrats, a field marshall, second lieutenant, NCO, PBI.......?

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: Teribus
Date: 10 May 08 - 07:01 AM

"We are encouraged to be greedy as individuals. By several forces."

You list Advertising, Mass Media, politicians, et cetera. As previously stated they encourage members of the public to buy, they do not encourage members of the public to be greedy. I can see that it would be very easy for those forces you speak of to "sell" you something, how on earth could they promote and induce "greed" in someone who is not already "greedy"?

"we are told on all sides that if we stopped consuming, our civilisation would collapse."

Now that is strange Ivor, because I have never been told that once and like you I have been wandering around all over this planet for quite a number of years and in the course of that journey in terms of time and distance I have found that I "need" progressively less.

Do you know Ivor, that if accosted on the street by a "market researcher" when asked your age, if you say you are over 34, your form is automatically discarded. It is discarded because your opinions and subsequent answers are of no interest, because the "Ad-Men" know that there is nothing, or very little that they can say or do to "make" you buy something.

"Bush has just given the Americans a load (?) of cash with the patriotic duty being to go and buy IN ORDER TO GET THE SYSTEM MOVING again."

How often has he done this Ivor? How often has anyone else done this? Not often is it, and in this particular instance it has been in response to a specific cause. So no, President Bush by authorizing the recently announced tax rebates is not encouraging people to be "greedy", he and his administration are hoping that by helping to put more money in circulation more money will be spent. Exactly how that money is spent, if at all,
is entirely up to individual choice, neither President Bush, nor anybody else has got any control over that.

The 'keeping up with the Joneses' syndrome, and the belief that "buying more will bring satisfaction" are also individual faults, the latter is actually a mental illness. At no point in my life have I ever had it preached to me that I must "keep up with the Joneses", and I don't know maybe it's just a "Scottish" thing but in my youth I was always taught the exact opposite of "buying more will bring satisfaction". We were always taught that having the ability to buy, gained by your own endeavours, if and when you want to, will bring you satisfaction

"by industry and commerce constantly having the new, the improved, and the different. Do encourage us to keep buying."

What you are talking about here is progress, I know most socialists are "Luddites" at heart and are bitterly opposed to progress, irrespective of how many times that history has proved them wrong. But as you correctly state in that quotation from your post, industry and commerce encourage you to buy – they do not encourage you to be "greedy".

"Our system is so designed as to try to make us constantly dissatisfied."

Now how exactly does "our system" do that Ivor, or is this just another version of the universal left-wing socialists whinge, "I'm dissatisfied with (whatever) it must be someone else's fault".

"Then there's fashion, another driver of dissatisfaction, and going shopping and consuming."

Personal choice Ivor, if you are daft enough to be caught up in it then more fool you. One thing I learned from my father – what is fashionable for me at any given moment in time is what I actually happen to be wearing at that given moment in time. But there again I had the advantage of going to school in the days when school uniforms were the norm (covered from when I was 5 years old until I was 17 years old), then I did my time in the Navy after which I was either in coveralls or in jeans and casual shirts, so no Ivor, I do not regard fashion as a driver of dissatisfaction, neither do many of my friends and acquaintances.

"And a big driver is shareholder/stockholder demand that the share value keeps rising, otherwise the investments will go elsewhere. So there's pressure from there to grow, to innovate, to sell, sell, sell. And sell more."

That is progress, advancement and I note that one thing that you omit to mention with regard to all that in the passage quoted above – job security, increased employment from increased production.

"And the rich and the well-off are as likely to be envious as anyone, if not more so."

Now exactly why should the "rich" be more likely to be envious? Your statement is completely irrational, and more likely to be based on envy than reason.

"the valuing of accumulation in itself does seem to me more fundamental to the thinking of the right than to the left."

Biblical parables about "talents" and "wise" and "foolish" virgins spring to mind in reading that which you have written above Ivor. Do the "right" have a greater regard for savings and investment? I would say yes. Are you saying that generally the "left" are spendthrift wasters? Certainly the current NuLab Government are. There are families in the UK now who have three generations that have never worked a day in their lives – that fundamentally is wrong.

"Labour is a cost to be kept under control."
Absolutely, that is essential, prudent, basic, good business practice. When labour is a cost not kept under control, your business becomes uncompetitive and goes to the wall and jobs are lost. The classic that always comes up in the Maggie Thatcher threads is the mining industry, costs were not kept under control a ton of British coal cost £250 to produce, when you could buy open cast Australian coal on the dockside in the UK for £8 per ton – so where do you buy your coal if you are interested in keeping costs down?

"Even if capital is making millions in profit, costs (including wages and salaries) being kept under control is basic. Especially when, as I said above, it's the shareholders who have to be satisfied above all and constantly. Meanwhile, Labour is replaceable, and no particular workers are indispensable."

Who are the largest "shareholders" Ivor? Where do their "profits" go? By the bye no-one is indispensable.

"Nor have you met the point that even in the UK, the (approx) 5th biggest economy in the world, that strong economic fact doesn't percolate or cascade to all - 1.6 million unemployed, millions encircling the minimum wage. So if they can't benefit in a good economic time in a strong economy, when exactly will they?"

1.6 million, around 2.6% of the population, that Ivor is low compared to other industrial counties. Spain 12.8%; Finland 10%; France 9%; Germany 8.1%; Belgium 6.7%; Italy 6% the USA 5%. Are people better off now than when I was a lad – every indicator seems to suggest that - yes they are.

Did "dire poverty" appear overnight in Russia and China, or was it already there but nobody was courageous enough to draw it to anybody's attention. If Lenin or Stalin came back now they wouldn't recognize Russia, Putin has made the claim that very soon Russia will replace Britain as the worlds fifth largest economy – dire poverty indeed. That represents a massive economic leap forward that would have been impossible under communism, especially the brand of it practiced in the USSR.

"the divergence into rich and poor is not a law of nature or providence. It's inherent, a necessary part , of capitalism."

What complete and utter rot, irrespective of system there has always been the division of rich and poor, there always will be. It is a "law of nature" because it is a fact of life that people are not created equal. They may be "equal in the eyes of God", they may be considered "equal in the eyes of the Law", but one thing is for certain that measured against any other yardstick in life no two people on this planet are equal.

Subject: RE: BS: UK local elections: here comes poverty
From: autolycus
Date: 09 May 08 - 01:22 PM

We are encouraged to be greedy as individuals. By several forces. Advertising is but one. The mass Media does it too, telling us about the latest .........................et cetera.

we are told on all sides that if we stopped consuming, our civilisation would collapse.

bush has just given the Americans a load (?) of cash with the patriotic duty being to go and buy IN ORDER TO GET THE SYSTEM MOVING again. So, no not just advertising.

By the 'keeping up with the Joneses' syndrome.

By a psychology that 'believes' buying more will bring satisfaction.Factually erroneous but part of the psychology of many.

by industry and commerce constantly having the new, the improved, and the different. Do encourage us to keep buying. Look at CDs. They got introduced, and people bought their existing collections all over again in a 'new' format'

You sell 'stuff' by many meanings of sell. There's not much to be made out of valuing, rather than stuff, relating, intimacy, contentment, authenticity, personal creartivity(I'll keep that). Still less, satisfaction. And gratitude for what one already has.

Our system is so designed as to try to make us constantly dissatisfied.

The there's fashion, another driver of dissatisfaction, and going shopping and consuming.

So - no, not just advertising.

And a big driver is shareholder/stockholder demand that the share value keeps rising, otherwise the investments will go elsewhere. So there's pressure from there to grow, to innovate, to sell, sell, sell. And sell more.

And the rich and the well-off are as likely to be envious as anyone, if not more so.

you credit people with intelligence, yet advertising persists and grows. And business wouldn't chuck money into advertising if it was useless. So it plainly is invaluable.

of course greed is not the preserve of one particular politics, tho the insurance man who taught me a lot about money said people were motivated by but two things - need or greed. We were selling savings plans, insurance, pensions.

on the other hand, the valuing of accumulation in itself does seem to me more fundamental to the thinking of the right than to the left.

you say my capital/labour account is ludicrous, yet you don't address the point that for capital, Labour is a cost to be kept under control. Even if capital is making millions in profit, costs (including wages and salaries) being kept under control is basic. Especially when, as I said above, it's the shareholders who have to be satisfied above all and constantly. Meanwhile, Labour is replaceable, and no particular workers are indispensable.

Nor have you met the point that even in the UK, the (approx) 5th biggest economy in the world, that strong economic fact doesn't persolate or cascade to all - 1.6 million unemployed, millions encircling the minimum wage. So if they can't benefit in a good economic time in a strong economy, when exactly will they? meantime, because they are good boys and girls who've been whupped into line, and wouldn't say boo to a goose in many numbers,............

When successively Russia and China took on capitalistic methods, suddenly millions and dire poverty appeared almost overnight. You get rich by working hard? Didn't look like it. And the response to those developments was, 'well that was bound to happen once capitalistic practices were introduced.'

Why?

because the divergence into rich and poor is not a law of nature or providence. It's inherent, a necessary part , of capitalism.

btw, have you ever wondered why the 'trickle-down' theory wasn't the 'cascade-down' theory?

management is Labour from the point of view of its position in the economy; Capital in the sense that it does the work of Capital rather thasn labour at the coalface. Insofar as management deosn't think of itself as labour, its members have (along with millions of others), false conscousness; i.e. managers' beliefs about their function is at variance with their actual function.

No, Capital is not 'just' money, but one side of a fundamental divide in society. it is also 'money'. the job of capital is Biblical - to go forth amd multiply. If it doesn't, it's not doing its job.

"Turning £100 into £110 is work; turning "100 million into £110 million, is inevitable." (some rich bloke - might have been Buffet.)


   Ivor