Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Conservative party discovers socialism!; Osborne's Autumn Statement
Topic Started: Nov 25 2015, 11:21 PM (521 Views)
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
They won't call it that of course but that is what it is, they are planning to spend £7bn on putting up half a million houses! ;D

There are some wonderful contradictions here, the private sector has failed once again as it has formed a cartel so the state needs to step in, the houses would by economic logic be kept in taxpayer hands but instead will be sold thus involving the banks reaping the longer term profits, then we have the property owning democracy that Thatcher banged on about, even the French have a higher rate of ownership now thus endangering future Conservatism, and finally will they really follow it through as debt levels among new buyers are already at dangerously high levels?

This is going to be one to watch........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 2 2015, 08:55 AM


If you want high costs of building then let the public sector become builders. I think that alone would adds ~20% to the cost of every new build. I do not buy the obvious clap-trap that public sector works, not subject to the strictures of the profit motive that results in close cost control will do anything efficiently. History and all such evidence shows otherwise.

Utterly clueless babble with figures just plucked out of thin air! ;D

This is a typical scenario, councillors sell off council land for a song, often to people who then become property developers! Naturally planning permission is a given, in this region a plot typically the same or even more than the actual build price of the house standing on it! WITHOUT PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT PRICES COULD BE REDUCED CONSIDERABLY.

Typical price of council owned "agricultural" land, 1 acre £6.5k, 1 acre of former agricultural land with planning permission granted, up to £1m.

File under stick to cliches and flag waving..............
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 2 2015, 09:00 AM
There is nothing stopping Planning Depts of Local Gov. reviewing each application to build, on a case by case basis, and demanding a portion of low cost dwellings within the stock.
Are you deaf/blind?

The obligation to build affordable housing on any new site is no longer in force, Councils can ask that developers build affordable home but the developer can either refuse of ignore the request.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 2 2015, 10:15 AM
skwirked
Dec 2 2015, 09:09 AM
"So what"

:facepalm:
No we do not as the claim put no limit on time. What we do know is that Socialism, no matter how much the monkeys bang on about it, has a negative effect on the standing of the average UK man and there has been sufficient time and sufficient substance to make such a claim and sign it off with QED. Socialism is or should be dead a best we embrace Welfare Capitalism and make it work for us. Seeking to refight lost battles, long lost, is a complete waste of time and efforts.
"Socialism" was building half a million homes a year in the fifties and sixties, did you glasses fall of when those graphs were put up?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 2 2015, 10:36 PM
RJD
Dec 2 2015, 10:15 AM
skwirked
Dec 2 2015, 09:09 AM
"So what"

:facepalm:
No we do not as the claim put no limit on time. What we do know is that Socialism, no matter how much the monkeys bang on about it, has a negative effect on the standing of the average UK man and there has been sufficient time and sufficient substance to make such a claim and sign it off with QED. Socialism is or should be dead a best we embrace Welfare Capitalism and make it work for us. Seeking to refight lost battles, long lost, is a complete waste of time and efforts.
"Socialism" was building half a million homes a year in the fifties and sixties, did you glasses fall of when those graphs were put up?
I noticed that there were a good many bods outside of the HoC whilst the air strikes in Syria were being debated, I also saw that all the banners and posters they brandished had "socialist party" blazoned across them.....I wonder which sector of the country these bods think they represent as there is no official party bearing that name in the house?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 2 2015, 10:36 PM
"Socialism" was building half a million homes a year in the fifties and sixties, did you glasses fall of when those graphs were put up?
Quite, only Labour governments have built social housing in quantity, and even they stopped doing so as the graphs show.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 02:01 AM
Tigger
Dec 2 2015, 10:36 PM
RJD
Dec 2 2015, 10:15 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
"Socialism" was building half a million homes a year in the fifties and sixties, did you glasses fall of when those graphs were put up?
I noticed that there were a good many bods outside of the HoC whilst the air strikes in Syria were being debated, I also saw that all the banners and posters they brandished had "socialist party" blazoned across them.....I wonder which sector of the country these bods think they represent as there is no official party bearing that name in the house?
Most Usuals here have no idea what socialism stands for.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 3 2015, 01:42 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 02:01 AM
Tigger
Dec 2 2015, 10:36 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I noticed that there were a good many bods outside of the HoC whilst the air strikes in Syria were being debated, I also saw that all the banners and posters they brandished had "socialist party" blazoned across them.....I wonder which sector of the country these bods think they represent as there is no official party bearing that name in the house?
Most Usuals here have no idea what socialism stands for.
I must confess neither do I, but the point I made still stands, who do these people think that they represent other than themselves? the labour party, I believe may have some closet Marxists that are too frightened to come "out" but what or who they represent is a conundrum to me, this capitalist society may not be perfect but it is certainly here to stay and I believe that the peoples of the world in general are benefitting and will benefit from it when ALL countries see that they can use it to their advantage instead of being "used" by it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 02:25 PM
the labour party, I believe may have some closet Marxists that are too frightened to come "out" but what or who they represent is a conundrum to me, this capitalist society may not be perfect but it is certainly here to stay ....

The Conservative party has more than a few Capitalists among its ranks ....... who do they serve and represent?
The Labour party manifesto does not contain any defined Marxist Policies.
Your suspicions, objections, are baseless ....... your preference is clear and not at all
an ideological devotion to either Democracy or the service of the electorate it represents.
Capitalism is a system of economic importance. It should not be a Political system as well, but a tool to aid trade and the fair exchange of goods and services, of resources and manpower ........ not the dash for greater and greater profit it is now.

Edited by Affa, Dec 3 2015, 04:25 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 04:24 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 02:25 PM
the labour party, I believe may have some closet Marxists that are too frightened to come "out" but what or who they represent is a conundrum to me, this capitalist society may not be perfect but it is certainly here to stay ....

The Conservative party has more than a few Capitalists among its ranks ....... who do they serve and represent?
The Labour party manifesto does not contain any defined Marxist Policies.
Your suspicions, objections, are baseless ....... your preference is clear and not at all
an ideological devotion to either Democracy or the service of the electorate it represents.
Capitalism is a system of economic importance. It should not be a Political system as well, but a tool to aid trade and the fair exchange of goods and services, of resources and manpower ........ not the dash for greater and greater profit it is now.

As you wish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 04:29 PM
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 04:24 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 02:25 PM
the labour party, I believe may have some closet Marxists that are too frightened to come "out" but what or who they represent is a conundrum to me, this capitalist society may not be perfect but it is certainly here to stay ....

The Conservative party has more than a few Capitalists among its ranks ....... who do they serve and represent?
The Labour party manifesto does not contain any defined Marxist Policies.
Your suspicions, objections, are baseless ....... your preference is clear and not at all
an ideological devotion to either Democracy or the service of the electorate it represents.
Capitalism is a system of economic importance. It should not be a Political system as well, but a tool to aid trade and the fair exchange of goods and services, of resources and manpower ........ not the dash for greater and greater profit it is now.

As you wish.

If Capitalism is (as I say) defined as the means to secure gains for investors, is primarily the dash for cash that equates to 'exploitation' = gaining from what others provide (the profit motive), then it is a drain on resources, a process of the wealthy enhancing their wealth at the expense of those it exploits.
It is why the wealth gap is ever widening.
Aided by politicians elected not to serve them, but to serve the exploited.
Quote:
 

exploitation
ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
"the exploitation of migrant workers"
synonyms: taking advantage, making use, abuse of, misuse, ill treatment, unfair treatment, bleeding dry, sucking dry, squeezing, wringing;
2.
the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 04:43 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 04:29 PM
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 04:24 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepnot the dash for greater and greater profit it is now.

As you wish.

If Capitalism is (as I say) defined as the means to secure gains for investors, is primarily the dash for cash that equates to 'exploitation' = gaining from what others provide (the profit motive), then it is a drain on resources, a process of the wealthy enhancing their wealth at the expense of those it exploits.
It is why the wealth gap is ever widening.
Aided by politicians elected not to serve them, but to serve the exploited.
Quote:
 

exploitation
ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
"the exploitation of migrant workers"
synonyms:taking advantage, making use, abuse of, misuse, ill treatment, unfair treatment, bleeding dry, sucking dry, squeezing, wringing;
2.
the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.

I can only speak for myself and as a family we are not that badly off, but then again we are all in full time employment and paying our way and not relying on anyone else to pay our bills, so for me, despite what you have to say and so despise, the present system suits us fine as there is no limitation to what we can earn if we so choose to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
"no limitation to what we can earn if we so choose to do so"

Do you believe that everything in life is a choice/your own responsibility no matter what?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 04:48 PM
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 04:43 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 04:29 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepnot the dash for greater and greater profit it is now.

If Capitalism is (as I say) defined as the means to secure gains for investors, is primarily the dash for cash that equates to 'exploitation' = gaining from what others provide (the profit motive), then it is a drain on resources, a process of the wealthy enhancing their wealth at the expense of those it exploits.
It is why the wealth gap is ever widening.
Aided by politicians elected not to serve them, but to serve the exploited.
Quote:
 

exploitation
ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
"the exploitation of migrant workers"
synonyms:taking advantage, making use, abuse of, misuse, ill treatment, unfair treatment, bleeding dry, sucking dry, squeezing, wringing;
2.
the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.

I can only speak for myself and as a family we are not that badly off, but then again we are all in full time employment and paying our way and not relying on anyone else to pay our bills, so for me, despite what you have to say and so despise, the present system suits us fine as there is no limitation to what we can earn if we so choose to do so.

You work in the public sector. So it must be presumed that nobody is profiting from your labour (money terms), unless your employers is a private contractor providing (for profit) the service which you in your employment make possible.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 05:18 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 04:48 PM
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 04:43 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepnot the dash for greater and greater profit it is now.
I can only speak for myself and as a family we are not that badly off, but then again we are all in full time employment and paying our way and not relying on anyone else to pay our bills, so for me, despite what you have to say and so despise, the present system suits us fine as there is no limitation to what we can earn if we so choose to do so.

You work in the public sector. So it must be presumed that nobody is profiting from your labour (money terms), unless your employers is a private contractor providing (for profit) the service which you in your employment make possible.

Yes I work in the public sector for a PFI contractor, that fact has been common knowledge on this forum for as long as I have been a member of this forum, I began work at the hospital on November 3rd 2003, and that is when the hospital,( Brand new build) opened under a PFI scheme, it cost £43million to build and will be handed back to the NHS after 30 years.
Edited by Rich, Dec 3 2015, 05:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of agrarian poverty and that is something socialism cannot boast. Each time socialism has been tried, even the English watered down liberal version, it has worked against the interests of society at large in delivering shoddy, expensive goods late or rationed.
The problem is that the mindset of the usual Usual cannot tolerate the idea that a profit can and should be delivered to those who take investment risks. They also seem to have the quaint idea that if the profit motive is removed then the natural self interest of employees would ensure they worked efficiently. There is a reason why companies employ Supervisors.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 3 2015, 06:14 PM
Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of agrarian poverty and that is something socialism cannot boast
Capitalism has been around a long time, far longer than the time when poverty was made relative instead of real. It was the advent of true democracy that caused the Capitalist system to contribute towards raising those it used out of poverty. Capitalism was made to have a social conscience, and it worked. Democracy established there had to be a social conscience, that in effect made capitalism work for everybody, the masses included.
Some time back I posted that the creation of the Welfare State of post war socialism that indirectly led to a boom period of industry and technological advances is being unravelled today. That period had living standards rising, the 'Market' expanding - business, including service industries, finding all sorts of opportunities for investors to earn their profits.
And then the rise in living standards stopped, stagnated, and are now falling - the Welfare State is being reduced, is under attack, and what is the result - business can no longer rely on the Market here as a source of wealth, as a place to invest.

We are told that high unemployment levels are acceptable, told wages price us out of competition, that we are not owed a decent standard of living ....... that is what capitalism without a social conscience has produced.


Edited by Affa, Dec 3 2015, 07:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 07:21 PM
RJD
Dec 3 2015, 06:14 PM
Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of agrarian poverty and that is something socialism cannot boast
Capitalism has been around a long time, far longer than the time when poverty was made relative instead of real. It was the advent of true democracy that caused the Capitalist system to contribute towards raising those it used out of poverty. Capitalism was made to have a social conscience, and it worked. Democracy established there had to be a social conscience, that in effect made capitalism work for everybody, the masses included.
Some time back I posted that the creation of the Welfare State of post war socialism that indirectly led to a boom period of industry and technological advances is being unravelled today. That period had living standards rising, the 'Market' expanding - business, including service industries, finding all sorts of opportunities for investors to earn their profits.
And then the rise in living standards stopped, stagnated, and are now falling - the Welfare State is being reduced, is under attack, and what is the result - business can no longer rely on the Market here as a source of wealth, as a place to invest.

We are told that high unemployment levels are acceptable, told wages price us out of competition, that we are not owed a decent standard of living ....... that is what capitalism without a social conscience has produced.


We are also told that when the individual can be bothered to help himself then there is much at that individuals disposal to help further, in other words, get off of ones backside and make things happen instead of waiting for something to come your way, I realise it sounds hard after all these years of being molly coddled but that is how life is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 07:31 PM
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 07:21 PM
RJD
Dec 3 2015, 06:14 PM
Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of agrarian poverty and that is something socialism cannot boast
Capitalism has been around a long time, far longer than the time when poverty was made relative instead of real. It was the advent of true democracy that caused the Capitalist system to contribute towards raising those it used out of poverty. Capitalism was made to have a social conscience, and it worked. Democracy established there had to be a social conscience, that in effect made capitalism work for everybody, the masses included.
Some time back I posted that the creation of the Welfare State of post war socialism that indirectly led to a boom period of industry and technological advances is being unravelled today. That period had living standards rising, the 'Market' expanding - business, including service industries, finding all sorts of opportunities for investors to earn their profits.
And then the rise in living standards stopped, stagnated, and are now falling - the Welfare State is being reduced, is under attack, and what is the result - business can no longer rely on the Market here as a source of wealth, as a place to invest.

We are told that high unemployment levels are acceptable, told wages price us out of competition, that we are not owed a decent standard of living ....... that is what capitalism without a social conscience has produced.


We are also told that when the individual can be bothered to help himself then there is much at that individuals disposal to help further, in other words, get off of ones backside and make things happen instead of waiting for something to come your way, I realise it sounds hard after all these years of being molly coddled but that is how life is.

If you are imagining that I believe that everyone should be given a job, you're wrong.
If you think business paying a living wage is 'mollycoddling', you are wrong.

A job, any job, should earn the wage it receives, should ADD Value.

What is wrong imo is the profiteering from work done that rewards investors far more than it recompenses those actually earning the wealth!

I also balk at the notion that investors are risk takers and that their returns are commensurate with the risks they take ....... it is classic spin and mind altering rhetoric to persuade voters that they are being fairly considered.

Just to add that I do hope none of your offspring, or theirs, fall victim to the changes we are witnessing taking place - fall into benefit dependency and relative poverty. The odds say they will.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 07:52 PM
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 07:31 PM
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 07:21 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep true democracy that caused the Capitalist system to contribute towards raising those it used out of poverty. Capitalism was made to have a social conscience, and it worked. Democracy established there had to be a social conscience, that in effect made capitalism work for everybody, the masses included.
Some time back I posted that the creation of the Welfare State of post war socialism that indirectly led to a boom period of industry and technological advances is being unravelled today. That period had living standards rising, the 'Market' expanding - business, including service industries, finding all sorts of opportunities for investors to earn their profits.
And then the rise in living standards stopped, stagnated, and are now falling - the Welfare State is being reduced, is under attack, and what is the result - business can no longer rely on the Market here as a source of wealth, as a place to invest.

We are told that high unemployment levels are acceptable, told wages price us out of competition, that we are not owed a decent standard of living ....... that is what capitalism without a social conscience has produced.


We are also told that when the individual can be bothered to help himself then there is much at that individuals disposal to help further, in other words, get off of ones backside and make things happen instead of waiting for something to come your way, I realise it sounds hard after all these years of being molly coddled but that is how life is.

If you are imagining that I believe that everyone should be given a job, you're wrong.
If you think business paying a living wage is 'mollycoddling', you are wrong.

A job, any job, should earn the wage it receives, should ADD Value.

What is wrong imo is the profiteering from work done that rewards investors far more than it recompenses those actually earning the wealth!

I also balk at the notion that investors are risk takers and that their returns are commensurate with the risks they take ....... it is classic spin and mind altering rhetoric to persuade voters that they are being fairly considered.

Just to add that I do hope none of your offspring, or theirs, fall victim to the changes we are witnessing taking place - fall into benefit dependency and relative poverty. The odds say they will.






You may or may not be right but both my lads are well aware of one fact, I will not carry dead wood for very long which is why they are both earning and independent of myself and my wife (their mother) I am aghast at some of the things they spend their money on but that is their business, just as long as they look after their mum then I am happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 1 2015, 08:29 AM
IP:
Quote:
 
This government was faced with a problem, if it let house prices reflect the amounts people could afford on ordinary wages prices would come down, this is true market forces, however the downside (?) is the banks and several other areas of the economy would probably collapse, so the government is now subsidising house prices with taxpayers money.


The Gov. do not have such a problem and will not have such a problem as it is not responsible for setting house prices, this is done by owners and their advisors. If the Gov. set rules such as; "you cannot borrow more than 80% of the market price for the property" and/or "you cannot borrow more than 4x combined earnings", then demand to buy would reduce and rentals increase. There might be fewer units built than currently planned, but the Banks would not collapse, the "buy to rent boys" would move in. You see the Posters forgot one fundamental and that is that people will still want to live in a house somewhere even if they do not own it. So demand actually does not reduce.

If regions want more affordable houses to buy or rent then those that give the permissions to build need to be more demanding. The central Gov. can do little other than facilitate finances and attempt to bully Planning Authorities, in a capitalist democratic country anyway.

Cost to build per SQ metre

http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/2008/10/15/how-much-will-your-project-cost...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Dec 3 2015, 02:01 AM
I noticed that there were a good many bods outside of the HoC whilst the air strikes in Syria were being debated, I also saw that all the banners and posters they brandished had "socialist party" blazoned across them.....I wonder which sector of the country these bods think they represent as there is no official party bearing that name in the house?
I expect your council house was built under the socialist terror Rich.

I fully expect you to make you and your family homeless and stick to your free market principles. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 3 2015, 06:14 PM
Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of agrarian poverty and that is something socialism cannot boast.
!jk!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 3 2015, 08:34 PM


-----------------------


Do you understand it though?

If you do please explain it to your fellow traveller RJD, he might learn something for once. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Dec 3 2015, 10:40 PM
Tytoalba
Dec 3 2015, 08:34 PM


-----------------------


Do you understand it though?

If you do please explain it to your fellow traveller RJD, he might learn something for once. :)
Its a link, one of many, that can be accessed by all. Its mainly for self builders, to get some idea of costs to expect. Developers have lower costs and seek to make a bigger profit, depending on the regional market forces
I bought a plot of land and had my house built, so I had some idea of costs and the setting up of a home from scratch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Its a link, one of many, that can be accessed by all. Its mainly for self builders, to get some idea of costs to expect. Developers have lower costs and seek to make a bigger profit, depending on the regional market forces
I bought a plot of land and had my house built, so I had some idea of costs and the setting up of a home from scratch
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Dec 3 2015, 11:42 PM
Its a link, one of many, that can be accessed by all. Its mainly for self builders, to get some idea of costs to expect. Developers have lower costs and seek to make a bigger profit, depending on the regional market forces
I bought a plot of land and had my house built, so I had some idea of costs and the setting up of a home from scratch.
The lawyers often get a big cut these days as well.

Sadly land ownership is not taxed, even when you do nothing with it, can't think why!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Dec 3 2015, 07:21 PM
RJD
Dec 3 2015, 06:14 PM
Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of agrarian poverty and that is something socialism cannot boast
Capitalism has been around a long time, far longer than the time when poverty was made relative instead of real. It was the advent of true democracy that caused the Capitalist system to contribute towards raising those it used out of poverty. Capitalism was made to have a social conscience, and it worked. Democracy established there had to be a social conscience, that in effect made capitalism work for everybody, the masses included.
Some time back I posted that the creation of the Welfare State of post war socialism that indirectly led to a boom period of industry and technological advances is being unravelled today. That period had living standards rising, the 'Market' expanding - business, including service industries, finding all sorts of opportunities for investors to earn their profits.
And then the rise in living standards stopped, stagnated, and are now falling - the Welfare State is being reduced, is under attack, and what is the result - business can no longer rely on the Market here as a source of wealth, as a place to invest.

We are told that high unemployment levels are acceptable, told wages price us out of competition, that we are not owed a decent standard of living ....... that is what capitalism without a social conscience has produced.


Not true and none of the numbers support your claims. What you are now seeing is not just here in the UK but across the mature western World, it is the brutal effects of global competition. Are you going to deny a poor Asian Peasant the chance of a better life to support that of a European? You might say yes to that.
Globalisation will be brutal, but through trade it, hopefully, will make us more interdependent. I do not wish to see 4m Chinese men in arms in a belligerent mood.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Bollocks. Affa's post is nigh on unfaultable, if anyone can disprove him then I'd love to see such.
Edited by skwirked, Dec 4 2015, 08:20 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 08:20 AM
Bollocks. Affa's post is nigh on unfaultable, if anyone can disprove him then I'd love to see such.
But you are well known for only accepting that which rings true in your biased ears, therefore, who would bother?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well known to whom? You? You do not speak for this forum, therefore I will take your post and most of your other posts with a big pinch of salt; just disprove him if able or keep schtum.

Oh and the irony of your post clearly escapes you. ;-)
Edited by skwirked, Dec 4 2015, 08:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Dec 4 2015, 08:25 AM
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 08:20 AM
Bollocks. Affa's post is nigh on unfaultable, if anyone can disprove him then I'd love to see such.
But you are well known for only accepting that which rings true in your biased ears, therefore, who would bother?
Are you married to Lady C perchance?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 4 2015, 08:20 AM
Bollocks. Affa's post is nigh on unfaultable, if anyone can disprove him then I'd love to see such.
Well much of it was as you say very good. I'd have applauded it had it not had this in it

" the Welfare State of post war socialism that indirectly led to a boom period of industry and technological advances . . .. That period had living standards rising, the 'Market' expanding - business, including service industries, finding all sorts of opportunities for investors to earn their profits."

The truth is the post war one off grants from the USA allowed us to bring in the welfare state that had at its core some seriously uncosted provisions that continue to be major issues for governments over 50 years on. They also coincided with the relatively slow growth in our "industry and technological advances" compared to other nations that rapidly overtook us leading inevitably to our industrial decline and enduring high unemployment. I use the phrase 'coincided with' rather than caused but a stronger case could be made for that linkage then the opposite that Affa was arguing.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply