A great day for Britain

[doodab]

If anyone thinks that the interests on British bankers are more aligned wiht the interests of British pensioners (which is what 'in the UK interest' suggests) that they are with French, Spanish or German bankers (which is what 'class interest' would suggest), then they need to sit in the corner have a good long think.

Well said.

[Old Greg]

Well said.

I never had you down as a Marxist!

[PAH]

Ah the zero-sum fallacy.
If a writer writes a book that makes him rich or someone creates some software to make them rich how exactly have they impoverished someone else?

If he becomes a millionaire that million has come from somewhere and could have been spent on other things.

If zero-sum were true, how come the world now has more middle class and wealthy people than ever, especially in once-poor countries?

By selling the earth's natural resources (oil, gas, coal, diamonds, drinking water)?

Would be interesting to see a comparison over the years of the percentage of global population considered not poor.

If you have a thousand pounds today are you really that much better off than someone who had 100 pounds 20 years ago?

We're not richer, otherwise we'd all still be able to afford to live on one income while the missus stays at home with the kids.

[sasguru]

I never had you down as a Marxist!

Hes' not. He's a bitter failed capitalist.

[sasguru]

If he becomes a millionaire that million has come from somewhere and could have been spent on other things.



:

What a ridiculous argument.
If a writer writes a best selling book and a million people pay £10 for it, everyone has benefited, the readers presumably got pleasure or education from the book for very little outlay, the writer got became rich.

[Old Greg]

What a ridiculous argument.
If a writer writes a best selling book and a million people pay £10 for it, everyone has benefited, the readers presumably got pleasure or education from the book for very little outlay, the writer got became rich.

So if a group of people (1 or 2%) have so much that they own 90% of the world's wealth, the other 98 to 99% are not impoverished by this state of affairs?

[sasguru]

So if a group of people (1 or 2%) have so much that they own 90% of the world's wealth, the other 98 to 99% are not impoverished by this state of affairs?

I've heard that sort of figure bandied around.
First of all I'm not sure what the "world's wealth" is and how those figures were reached.
Secondly twas ever thus perhaps? I would wager the same happens in a social market system like Germany - look at the wealthy, secretive families like the Quandts.
And in a communist system too: Stalin effectively "owned" 100% of the Soviet Union since he could expropriate anything he wanted (including people) on a whim.

In any case that's why we need proper capitalism rather than cronyism, oligarchies, monopolies and the like.

[DodgyAgent]

So if a group of people (1 or 2%) have so much that they own 90% of the world's wealth, the other 98 to 99% are not impoverished by this state of affairs?

Ok so whilst I endorse the view that too much power and money belongs in the hands of too few people, the premise of what you say is that there is a piece of cake which remains constant. So to sort out poverty all we need to do is divvy it up equally. Is that what you are saying?

[gingerjedi]

Isn't that due to the high cost of living in the UK, forcing people to require higher wages?

As the lowest paid jobs are barely better than the benefits available for not working, they have to get immigrants in to fill those jobs as they are currently willing to work harder for less.

If there was virtually no unemployment amongst the unskilled classes that fill these low paid jobs then you'd have a point.

The only long term solution is to lower the costs of living in the UK, starting with house/accommodation prices and food/energy/fuel, and make it more beneficial to go to work on low pay than sit at home on benefits.

Just like there can be no real solution to poverty (the bar can only be raised at the expense of others), there can be no highly paid job for everyone. Someone's got to work for peanuts and it may as well be our own under-educated people than those imported from elsewhere, so all the infrastructure can cope with the population without needing massive investment.

WHS^

Most people who choose not to work do so because it's not economically viable, I heard somewhere that France subsidises child care so it only costs 12 Euro a day which makes work worthwhile. Meanwhile on planet UK the government freezes working tax credits whilst giving scroungers a pay rise.

As for the veto, I wish David cared as much about creating manufacturing jobs as he does about protecting the banking sector.

[Old Greg]

I've heard that sort of figure bandied around.
First of all I'm not sure what the "world's wealth" is and how those figures were reached.
Secondly twas ever thus perhaps? I would wager the same happens in a social market system like Germany - look at the wealthy, secretive families like the Quandts.
And in a communist system too: Stalin effectively "owned" 100% of the Soviet Union since he could expropriate anything he wanted (including people) on a whim.

In any case that's why we need proper capitalism rather than cronyism, oligarchies, monopolies and the like.

It wasn't a figure, it was a hypothetical. And I'd be interested to see if it would be OK?