Ukip! Ukip! Ukip!

[Zero Liability]

This simplistic model leaves out the possibility of investment in technology and/or training. Something that reduces the marginal productivity of unskilled labour makes both of those more attractive. It's technological progress and not simple population expansion that drives wealth creation, so this has to be a good thing.

The other thing your dogmatic recital fails to take into account is that capitalism as it stands simply doesn't distribute wealth to the poorest. In many cases it doesn't even result in a subsistence wage being paid. Describing the mechanism by which wealth transfer occurs when it doesn't actually happen in practice rather points to a flaw in your reasoning doesn't it?

How is a price control going to increase investment or training? It doesn't. All that does happen is employers invest more in labour saving devices and gradually move towards higher value workers at the expense of those who just aren't worth it anymore. And if they could achieve higher productivity after the MW through training, what's to stop them before it? Or are you trying to argue this will occur along with no change to employment and if so on what basis?

Secondly, why the MW, which requires a panoply of assumptions to even pretend it is beneficial, over a basic income guarantee, if the goal is to ensure some people have a basic income?

The word 'dogma' has nothing to do with it though technocratic pretences are very close to one.

[doodab]

How is a price control going to increase investment or training? It doesn't. All that does happen is employers invest more in labour saving devices and gradually move towards higher value workers at the expense of those who just aren't worth it anymore.

You've answered your own question there haven't you.

Secondly, why the MW, which requires a panoply of assumptions to even pretend it is beneficial, over a basic income guarantee, if the goal is to ensure some people have a basic income?

That is actually a good question. A minimum income guarantee socialises the costs. If that is acceptable then why not do it that way? The trouble is that doesn't seem to be an acceptable solution for many.

The goal, BTW, is to achieve an equitable distribution of the benefits of growth, which capitalism fails to do, rather than ensure a basic income. Whether a minimum income guarantee achieves that depends every much on the structure of the tax system. Basically you end up building redistribution into the tax system instead of altering the underlying income distribution.

[Zero Liability]

It's redistribution however you cut it, but at least the BIG has the added benefit of streamlining the welfare is administered and requires comparatively less fiddling than the MW.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You've answered your own question there haven't you.

It's bizarre that you're so scornful of capitalism, yet condone the use of force in order to enact a policy which causes capitalists to invest in machines to replace workers

[SpontaneousOrder]

To back up your opinions with facts.

My opinions? or the opinions given by the experts which I pointed tractor to in order to find an explanation of how NMW has the exact opposite effect to it's intent?
"Opinions aren't facts" you presumed to say, so I pointed out that the two guys I had previously mentioned were full of facts to back up their reasoning.

Are you losing the plot?

[doodab]

It's bizarre that you're so scornful of capitalism, yet condone the use of force in order to enact a policy which causes capitalists to invest in machines to replace workers

Your inability to tell the difference between scorn & valid criticism clouds your judgement. I'm not scornful, I'm simply pointing out that it contains an inherent flaw that left unchecked will be it's downfall. No one seems to have picked up on or argued with that critique of the system at all, preferring to concentrate on rubbishing the minimum wage which is but one possible way of addressing the flaw. Regardless of your opinion of minimum wage, the problem remains.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The other thing your dogmatic recital fails to take into account is that capitalism as it stands simply doesn't distribute wealth to the poorest....

Even the poorest in this country generally have TVs. You can thank capitalism for that.
The poorest in this country have access to medical equipment and medicines that couldn't have been dreamed of a hundred years ago. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people have mobile phones to stay in contact with their loved ones. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people benefit from unimaginably cheap food, considering the population that needs feeding. You can thank capitalism for that too.
Poor people have access to computers and internet, connecting them to the entire globe and everyone in it. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people have access to transportation, making them infinitely more mobile than their peers of a hundred years ago. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people can buy new clothes for a couple of pounds each, a whole set of crockery for a couple of quid more. Microwaves for 20 or 30 quid. Cheap furniture. Cheap electric light bulbs. Wrist watches, shoes & toys for their children on scales of economy unthinkable for that same demographic a hundred years ago.

You're telling me that capitalism doesn't distribute wealth to the poorest?
What do the poorest contribute to all of this unbelievable wealth that they have now compared to years gone by? Without the capitalists they'd be living like wretches.
They deserve, if viewed purely by their own contributions, to be living in mud huts.

The beautiful thing about capitalism is that a man can only grow rich by improving the lives of his fellow man.

You make me sick pontificating about the failures of capitalism to distribute wealth to the poorest, while living the lifestyle of the greatest emperors of history in comparison the the world's real poor. Give up your own hard earned wealth to the poor rather than sitting on your arse blaming it on the very people that raised humanity out of the mud in the first place.

[DodgyAgent]

The other thing your dogmatic recital fails to take into account is that capitalism as it stands simply doesn't distribute wealth to the poorest....

The poor are trapped in poverty because they are imprisoned within the the suppressive command and control systems of socialism and the state. They are housed, fed, educated and nurtured by the state. If they were given capitalist style choices (education for instance) they would be empowered by having access to capitalism.

it is no coincidence that the poorest areas of UK society are governed and administered by socialist councils.

[doodab]

Even the poorest in this country generally have TVs. You can thank capitalism for that.
The poorest in this country have access to medical equipment and medicines that couldn't have been dreamed of a hundred years ago. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people have mobile phones to stay in contact with their loved ones. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people benefit from unimaginably cheap food, considering the population that needs feeding. You can thank capitalism for that too.
Poor people have access to computers and internet, connecting them to the entire globe and everyone in it. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people have access to transportation, making them infinitely more mobile than their peers of a hundred years ago. You can thank capitalism for that.
Poor people can buy new clothes for a couple of pounds each, a whole set of crockery for a couple of quid more. Microwaves for 20 or 30 quid. Cheap furniture. Cheap electric light bulbs. Wrist watches, shoes & toys for their children on scales of economy unthinkable for that same demographic a hundred years ago.

Many of the "poorest" don't even have homes, never mind televisions, computers & mobile phones.

You're telling me that capitalism doesn't distribute wealth to the poorest?

No. Learn to read FFS. I'm telling you that it doesn't distribute the results of growth evenly, therefore the distribution of wealth changes over time in an unsustainable way. It's incredibly ******* simple. There are two slices of pie. If, as the pie gets bigger, one piece grows faster than the pie does, that means the other one grows more slowly than the pie does. It may even be shrinking in absolute as well as relative terms.

[DodgyAgent]

Many of the "poorest" don't even have homes, never mind televisions, computers & mobile phones.



No. Learn to read FFS. I'm telling you that it doesn't distribute the results of growth evenly, therefore the distribution of wealth changes over time in an unsustainable way. It's incredibly ******* simple. There are two slices of pie. If, as the pie gets bigger, one piece grows faster than the pie does, that means the other one grows more slowly than the pie does. It may even be shrinking in absolute as well as relative terms.

The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't distribute wealth evenly. It distributes according to the wants of the people who live by it.