The Euro

[DodgyAgent]

"


As a free country, how are we to regard those who are 'sceptical about the current state of' but not 'opposed to' capitalism?

Come up with something better and whilst you are at it define "ethical capitalism"

[KimberleyChris]

"My point is manifested in your use of the words "rely",

We do 'rely', that is your job.

Employers ring you to see who you have available, and we use you and your contacts in industry as a 'water hole' for jobs. As an agent, you are naturally our first port of call, rather than trying to contact a multitude of employers individually, surely?

[KimberleyChris]

"Come up with something better and whilst you are at it define "ethical capitalism"

Well, socialism (in theory if not in practice) works for the common good. We are a capitalist country, so why can we not evolve a system of capitalism that has the same aim, rather than 'devil takes the hindmost'?

[DodgyAgent]

"My point is manifested in your use of the words "rely",

We do 'rely', that is your job.

Employers ring you to see who you have available, and we use you and your contacts in industry as a 'water hole' for jobs. As an agent, you are naturally our first port of call, rather than trying to contact a multitude of employers individually, surely?

That Chris is how our market works but the use of the word "rely" is fine as long as it does not become an obligation. It is a subtle difference I grant you but the determining dynamic is "attitude". Being a "victim" states that someone else has responsibility for your predicament. Socialism removes the onus of personal responsibility and plants that responsibility in the lap of the collective powers. So when I claim to be a victim I am merely saying "dont blame me" blame the system.

[TimberWolf]

There's probably is no perfect system of course. For some people socialism works best and for others more selfish systems work out best. Game theory might suggest that co-operation would be a winning strategy, if not a maximal one for all participants, but then again from what I recall of game theory the deeper you look the less certain what's best becomes. Likely there are winners and losers in all systems.

I think empirically more equal societies appear to work best though:

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

co-operative society is probably what got us out of the trees, for better or worse. That and mass warfare.

[KimberleyChris]

That Chris is how our market works but the use of the word "rely" is fine as long as it does not become an obligation. It is a subtle difference I grant you but the determining dynamic is "attitude". Being a "victim" states that someone else has responsibility for your predicament. Socialism removes the onus of personal responsibility and plants that responsibility in the lap of the collective powers. So when I claim to be a victim I am merely saying "dont blame me" blame the system.

Agents are not responsible for my being unemployed. I don't 'blame' anybody.

It's because there are so few jobs where I live.

When a job comes up, five different agents all ring me about the same job.

I am the front taxi on my rank, but nobody wants a taxi.

[oscarose]

WTWS +1

Buddhism provides a good framework. No violence, relax and smoke imported green from Holland after a day's contracting.

[DodgyAgent]

"Come up with something better and whilst you are at it define "ethical capitalism"

Well, socialism (in theory if not in practice) works for the common good. ?

Well actually it doesnt does it? In principle it is supposed to but the whole concept of socialism flies in the face of human nature that the best it can do is to try and manipulate people into making them believe that socialism is virtuous. In practice socialism is not virtuous, I have yet to see any example of where socialism has ever worked to enrich the people it is supposed to help.
We like to pin that (socialist) badge on our lapel saying that we are socialists because we think it makes us look caring. It is a cowardly and discredited accolade because socialists never ever practice socialism. Capitalism is far better. It is more , more honest and more realistic. It is (or should be) a system where self interest works for the good of everyone. We can quite happily vote labour and earn £100,000 a year and then claim to be a caring socialist knowing full well that no personal sacrifice is necessary.
The problem is that socialists pretend to be caring about everyone else when they are nothing of the sort and in doing so destroy the positives of capitalism - impoverishing everyone along the way.
What socialism should be doing is harnessing and encouraging the positive aspects of capitalism and ensuring that it does in fact benefit everyone.
The truth is that socialists do nothing of the sort because they are ultimately only interested in themselves

[KimberleyChris]

Again, it does seem that we are both trying to agree louder than the other.

I did say "socialism - in theory if not in practice" didn't I?.

Surely Conservatism doesn't have to appeal only to the basest instincts?..it is an old and mature philosophy after all.

Surely there is room for altruism in Conservatism too?

The last time I went to a Con Club (they have the best snooker tables :-) apart from the usual 'square' the local Rotarians and Lions were also well represented - all altruists.

[DodgyAgent]

Again, it does seem that we are both trying to agree louder than the other.

I did say "socialism - in theory if not in practice" didn't I?.

Surely Conservatism doesn't have to appeal only to the basest instincts?..it is an old and mature philosophy after all.

Surely there is room for altruism in Conservatism too?

The last time I went to a Con Club (they have the best snooker tables :-) apart from the usual 'square' the local Rotarians and Lions were also well represented - all altruists.

I do not know of any socialist who has endowed money upon the poor. I would imagine however that the great philanthropists of our time were followers of Conservative ideals. One of the difference between conservatives and socialists is that they dont pretend to be something they are not (caring of the poor). There is no virtue in being a socialist whatsoever. Why on earth would anyone with a brain logically sustain an ideology that does not work unless they have another agenda?