Letwin: We will redistribute wealth
DVH
the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy chief,
says today.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality
matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and
poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/23/nletwin23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/23/ixportaltop.html
Roger Dewhurst
"DVH" <dav...@vhvhvhvhvh.com> wrote in message
news:dog4ol$31n$2...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
R
>
Ian Bailey
DVH wrote:
I'd have thought an intelligent man like Letwin wouldn't embarrass
himself by confusing the words "widen" and "narrow" like that. Next
thing you know someone will accuse the Tories of caring for the poor!
Ian
joseph....@virgin.net
> "The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to narrow
> the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy chief,
> says today.
>
> In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality
> matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and
> poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
abelard will be along shortly to tell us that we must read between the
lines; thatthe socialist coup is no more, and that there are real
differences between the philosophies of NuLab and NuCon.
Gaz
The Tories have supported wealth redistribution since at least 1945, all
taxation, outside that raised to provide things that *cannot* be provided by
the individual (defence, criminal justice system).
A State that takes 40% of the nations income for itself can not do anything
else but redistribute.
Gaz
Gaz
You make the same silly mistake all socialists make, you confuse the desire
to spend other peoples money on the poor with caring for the poor. Its easy
to care when somebody else is paying.
Conservatives have argued that the State is not a very good means to help
people in poverty. The complexity of the welfare system encourages
ignorance, want, idleness and fecklessness.
The "caring" and "helpful" State, like Santa Clause, doesnt exist.
Gaz
>
> Ian
Greg Hennessy
wrote:
History does have a habit of repeating itself. Butskellism version 2.
--
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care"
Ian Bailey
Gaz wrote:
> Ian Bailey wrote:
> > DVH wrote:
> >
> >> "The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to narrow
> >> the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy
> >> chief,
> >> says today.
> >>
> >> In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality
> >> matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich
> >> and
> >> poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/23/nletwin23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/23/ixportaltop.html
> >
> > I'd have thought an intelligent man like Letwin wouldn't embarrass
> > himself by confusing the words "widen" and "narrow" like that. Next
> > thing you know someone will accuse the Tories of caring for the poor!
>
> You make the same silly mistake all socialists make, you confuse the desire
> to spend other peoples money on the poor with caring for the poor. Its easy
> to care when somebody else is paying.
Or in the case of Maggie succeed in spending record amounts on the
welfare state whilst simultaniously making life as shit as possible for
the millions she made dependant on it.
> Conservatives have argued that the State is not a very good means to help
> people in poverty. The complexity of the welfare system encourages
> ignorance, want, idleness and fecklessness.
None of which means that in the 80s the Tories gave a fuck about the
poor. Wonderful though private provision may be for those who can
afford it, for the poor sods left behind it means crumbling resources
getting worse.
> The "caring" and "helpful" State, like Santa Clause, doesnt exist.
Do remember that line for judgement day, I'm sure it will stand you in
good stead.....
Ian
joseph....@virgin.net
> Gaz wrote:
> > The "caring" and "helpful" State, like Santa Clause, doesnt exist.
>
> Do remember that line for judgement day, I'm sure it will stand you in
> good stead.....
I'm not sure that any religion teaches that the existence or otherwise
of Santa Claus (or of a caring and helpful state) affects one's
immortal destination either way.
Ian Bailey
joseph.hutch...@virgin.net wrote:
Tell that to Jesus when you imagine Santa out of existance and as a
result the Messiah doesn't get his Furby.
Ian
joseph....@virgin.net
The Messiah's been a very naughty boy, and will only get coal in his
stocking this Christmas!
AlanG
<dav...@vhvhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>"The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to narrow
>the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy chief,
>says today.
>
>In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality
>matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and
>poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
The world is turned on it's head when tories champion the poor while
Red Ken prices them off the road and into a public transport who's
operators promptly go on strike therebye stopping the poor from
getting to work to earn money to pay for a car to avoid the strike.
Funny old world.
abelard
typed:
depends entirely upon how it is done....
as a right or as a means of control.....
modern polities are going to be *forced* to 'redistribute' because
of the nature of modern society and production....
the only realistic answer is a citizen's wage/dividend as a *right*
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/citizens_wage.htm
any other approach leads either to socialist depravity or to feudalism
and s. americanism...
if he means what he says i have no problem with it....
"We do redistribute money and we should redistribute money," he says. "But
we have to find ways that empower people rather than reducing them to
dependency."
regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,207 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
typed:
one tory campaign with great truth was...
'labour cares, but can't pay'....
socialism inevitably reduces the size of the cake and
is also generating clientalism...
labour has never been good for the poor...
only the deluded imagine otherwise...
Sean
I think he means something more than just expressing the truism that
rich people will pay proportionately more of their income for the use
of common services than poor people.
Although he seems rather confused in the interview, I take it to mean
that he believes that redistribution should be used as a way of
ensuring greater equality of outcome.
His mother (one of Hayek's doctoral students) must be spinning in her
grave.
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:54:44 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de>
>
> typed:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:16:56 +0000 (UTC), "DVH"
>><dav...@vhvhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to narrow
>>>the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy chief,
>>>says today.
>>>
>>>In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality
>>>matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and
>>>poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
>>
>>
>>The world is turned on it's head when tories champion the poor while
>>Red Ken prices them off the road and into a public transport who's
>>operators promptly go on strike therebye stopping the poor from
>>getting to work to earn money to pay for a car to avoid the strike.
>>
>>Funny old world.
>
>one tory campaign with great truth was...
>'labour cares, but can't pay'....
>
>socialism inevitably reduces the size of the cake and
> is also generating clientalism...
All those cops on a pension at 50.
You should know anyway. You're a socialist.
Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse. The argument is
always going to be on how much socialism we need. What do we need to
do collectively for the survival of the society we live in.
>labour has never been good for the poor...
It was good for the poor prewar and after.
I was born just after WW2 and recall the living conditions of many of
the poor. Without labour we would be living like South American peons.
What we have today isn't labour or tory as I knew them and grew up
with. More national socialist.
mma...@my-deja.com
> Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
> operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse.
Socialism causes anarchy and collapse, because it encourages
parasitical behaviour and discourages productive behaviour: the whole
basis of socialism relies on the smart being willingly being enslaved
by the arrogant and stupid.
A few decades of socialism have turned a country that used to run a
quarter of the planet into a total basket-case. You'd think that would
be enough to put people off the idea.
Mark
allan tracy
DVH wrote:
> "The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to narrow
> the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy chief,
> says today.
>
> In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course, inequality
> matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and
> poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
Yeah..... but what's he going to do about the tax on beer and fags.
If he really wants to help the poor then he should cut the tax on fags.
This most wicked tax is the only reason half the poor are poor.
Energumen
news:1135335839....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well considering that there are people who worship Elvis Presley I wouldn't
entirely discount the possibility. Anyway, just because no religion teaches
it doesn't mean it's not true.
abelard
typed:
religions nuts never blame their religion...
regards...
Energumen
news:1135351194.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
The problem here is that AlanG has basically said that it's a matter of
degree, finding the right equalibrium, and you have come in and seem to be
saying that socialism is inherently bad. It is certainly true that any
society that has ever existed has pooled resources and acted as a group as
well as as individuals. That was certainly true of Britain in the days of
empire. There were still taxes and public spending etc. Perhaps you don't
consider that socialism? Then what is your definition of socialism?
As for encouraging parasitical behavour it would likely be much better if
taxes were shifted to be extremely high on returns to land (since that would
not discourage any economic activity, and such returns are not morally
justifiable), and shifted away from labour earnings and spending and onto
returns to capital (which is one area were pure capitalism does not justly
reward people for their efforts). A general increase in the market mechanism
and away from the state providing goods and services would probably be a
good thing IMO though.
Returns to land and capital are themselves parasitical since they directly
or indirectly afford rights in land to individuals rather than the group,
and thereby people are rewarded for other than their own efforts. However
Marx was wrong in attributing this to extracting a surplus from workers
returns to labour. It is itself the land contribution, but *individuals*
have no natural right to extract the contribution of the land for themselves
alone. As I have wondered whether the free market could be retained while
still respecting the natural right to land of the group and thereby doing
away with capitalism by altering the axiomatic property rights of the free
market capitalist system. Even if it were not possible, if we must have a
mixed economy anyway it is more just to shift the burden of taxation away
from returns to labour and onto returns to land (99% tax rate wouldn't hurt
the economy at all) and returns to capital.
abelard
typed:
that which is owned by nobody is cared for by nobody...
apparently recognised by aristotle....
>As I have wondered whether the free market could be retained while
>still respecting the natural right to land of the group and thereby doing
>away with capitalism by altering the axiomatic property rights of the free
>market capitalist system. Even if it were not possible, if we must have a
>mixed economy anyway it is more just to shift the burden of taxation away
>from returns to labour and onto returns to land (99% tax rate wouldn't hurt
>the economy at all) and returns to capital.
all tax flows from production....no matter however it is wrapped up by
the tax gatherers...
regards...
AlanG
So in your ideal world no law enforcement, no judges, no military
defence, no education but what you can pay for, no medical assist but
what you can pay for, no public health. We all just get what we can
pay for.
AlanG
wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2005 07:19:54 -0800, mma...@my-deja.com
>
> typed:
>
>>AlanG wrote:
>>> Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
>>> operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse.
>>
>>Socialism causes anarchy and collapse, because it encourages
>>parasitical behaviour and discourages productive behaviour: the whole
>>basis of socialism relies on the smart being willingly being enslaved
>>by the arrogant and stupid.
>>
>>A few decades of socialism have turned a country that used to run a
>>quarter of the planet into a total basket-case. You'd think that would
>>be enough to put people off the idea.
>
>religions nuts never blame their religion...
We had socialism since the first tax was levied to pay for a shaman.
I see you still want your own brand of socialism applied. Citizens
wage paid for out of socialist taxation. Needs socialist tax gatherers
to run it too. Now what else do you want to tax people for so as to
supply the socialist components your utopia needs to survive?
hummingbird
But instead it has created a society where people are anxious to be
granted ever greater slices of the largesse handed out. NuLab are
happy to oblige, providing the recipients promise their support.
--
"It [Blair's government] has exploited the mood of insecurity
to push through a law protecting itself from public protest."
How freedom of speech is being curtailed in Britain under Blair:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1937539,00.html
abelard
typed:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:32:03 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On 23 Dec 2005 07:19:54 -0800, mma...@my-deja.com
>>>AlanG wrote:
>>>> Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
>>>> operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse.
>>>
>>>Socialism causes anarchy and collapse, because it encourages
>>>parasitical behaviour and discourages productive behaviour: the whole
>>>basis of socialism relies on the smart being willingly being enslaved
>>>by the arrogant and stupid.
>>>
>>>A few decades of socialism have turned a country that used to run a
>>>quarter of the planet into a total basket-case. You'd think that would
>>>be enough to put people off the idea.
>>
>>religions nuts never blame their religion...
>
>We had socialism since the first tax was levied to pay for a shaman.
that's protection money....
>I see you still want your own brand of socialism applied. Citizens
>wage paid for out of socialist taxation.
depends on your view of 'ownership'....mine does not
accord with your socialist cultural dogmas....
>Needs socialist tax gatherers
>to run it too. Now what else do you want to tax people for so as to
>supply the socialist components your utopia needs to survive?
tanks and guns and bombs....
and some version of law courts....i am content with degrees of
localisation as the distance to which totc problems allow....
you needs adjust...i don't subscribe to your religion....
whereas you appear unable to function or think outside it
Energumen
news:f68oq1tfb49mirq6c...@4ax.com...
I am advocating group ownership, not "ownership by nobody". Is AstraZeneca
Plc owned by nobody?
>
>>As I have wondered whether the free market could be retained while
>>still respecting the natural right to land of the group and thereby doing
>>away with capitalism by altering the axiomatic property rights of the free
>>market capitalist system. Even if it were not possible, if we must have a
>>mixed economy anyway it is more just to shift the burden of taxation away
>>from returns to labour and onto returns to land (99% tax rate wouldn't
>>hurt
>>the economy at all) and returns to capital.
>
> all tax flows from production....no matter however it is wrapped up by
> the tax gatherers...
But not all is the product due to labour. This was Marx's central flaw. If
you doubt that 99% tax on returns to land would not effect economic
productivity then read Adam Smith.
If you start at year zero, and parachute in twenty people onto more
productive land and twenty other people onto less productive land and come
back twenty years later, if absolutely everything else is equal (talent,
effort, luck, amount and quality of labour expended by each individual) the
first group will end up wealthier, in aggregate, than the second. To whom is
that excess, that difference, rightly due? That is what BOTH the return to
land AND the return to capital (ie. return to improved land) actually are.
That's what Marx's "surplus value of labour" actually is.
Of course when I say land I mean it in the economic sense, including, for
example, oil.
"The oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq" - Colin Powell
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:25:53 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de>
>
> typed:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:32:03 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 Dec 2005 07:19:54 -0800, mma...@my-deja.com
>
>>>>AlanG wrote:
>>>>> Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
>>>>> operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse.
>>>>
>>>>Socialism causes anarchy and collapse, because it encourages
>>>>parasitical behaviour and discourages productive behaviour: the whole
>>>>basis of socialism relies on the smart being willingly being enslaved
>>>>by the arrogant and stupid.
>>>>
>>>>A few decades of socialism have turned a country that used to run a
>>>>quarter of the planet into a total basket-case. You'd think that would
>>>>be enough to put people off the idea.
>>>
>>>religions nuts never blame their religion...
>>
>>We had socialism since the first tax was levied to pay for a shaman.
>
>that's protection money....
Socialism
>
>>I see you still want your own brand of socialism applied. Citizens
>>wage paid for out of socialist taxation.
>
>depends on your view of 'ownership'....mine does not
> accord with your socialist cultural dogmas....
I'm for a free society with a minimal state.
You're a socialist
>
>>Needs socialist tax gatherers
>>to run it too. Now what else do you want to tax people for so as to
>>supply the socialist components your utopia needs to survive?
>
>tanks and guns and bombs....
>and some version of law courts....i am content with degrees of
> localisation as the distance to which totc problems allow....
Socialism any way you look at it
>
>you needs adjust...i don't subscribe to your religion....
I don't have a religion
>whereas you appear unable to function or think outside it
>
Socialist
>regards...
AlanG
<ZYLYDW...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2005 07:19:54 -0800, mma...@my-deja.com
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>AlanG wrote:
>>> Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
>>> operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse.
>>
>>Socialism causes anarchy and collapse, because it encourages
>>parasitical behaviour and discourages productive behaviour: the whole
>>basis of socialism relies on the smart being willingly being enslaved
>>by the arrogant and stupid.
>>
>>A few decades of socialism have turned a country that used to run a
>>quarter of the planet into a total basket-case. You'd think that would
>>be enough to put people off the idea.
>
>But instead it has created a society where people are anxious to be
>granted ever greater slices of the largesse handed out. NuLab are
>happy to oblige, providing the recipients promise their support.
Like all those cops on big salaries and pension scheme many people
would suck cock for.
Energumen
news:43ac1ef9$0$27189$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Another problem with capitalism is that it can tend to interfere with the
working of democracy. Since wealth accumulates in a Pareto distribution,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7107
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2906&t=finance
this can mean that individuals can accumulate vast amounts of individual
wealth, not related to their own labour contributions (except perhaps to the
small extent of acting as an initial seed). This economic power can become
political power and seep into and corrupt the democratic process. It can do
this by control of the process of "free" public debate,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1665621,00.html
or by "bribing" political parties by funding them. Such influence may not
represent the democratic will. It may even be very idiosyncratic to the
wealthy people involved.
Then again, look what the alternative of publicly funding political parties
did to Vlaams Blok. Though one might argue that public funding actually was
helpful to them initially since while they may be popular with voters,
companies and rich individuals may have been unwilling to fund them for fear
of courting controversy - at least in a relative sense, compared to other
parties.
The Pareto distribution can also exacerbate inter group jealousies when
there is perception whipped up that certain groups are exploiting others.
I'll leave the Jews out of it because there are enough people picking on
them here to last a lifetime! Take the examples of Indians in Fiji,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/fiji/article/0,2763,343641,00.html
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/fiji.htm
or white landowners in Zimbabwe,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2002/zimbabwe/default.stm
While these conflicts are ethnically tinged the economic jealousy element is
still there. There need not be the ethnic element,
Knights Templar money lending activities,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar#Banking
Of course there is the more general and generic case where there is not
necessarily any ethnic element, but that the two groups in contention are
simply "capitalists" or "landowners" and "workers". In which case this is
normally termed a "Marxist revolution", or something like that, and likely
ends up in some kind of totalitarian regime (examples too numerous to
mention).
So we can see how Nazism and Communism are linked. Nazism is somewhat like
an ethnicity based version of Communism, particularly scapegoating Jews, and
with matching pseudoscientific race concepts.
abelard
typed:
that's what socialists say about 'nationalisation'...
it doesn't work to protect the commons
>>>As I have wondered whether the free market could be retained while
>>>still respecting the natural right to land of the group and thereby doing
>>>away with capitalism by altering the axiomatic property rights of the free
>>>market capitalist system. Even if it were not possible, if we must have a
>>>mixed economy anyway it is more just to shift the burden of taxation away
>>>from returns to labour and onto returns to land (99% tax rate wouldn't
>>>hurt
>>>the economy at all) and returns to capital.
>>
>> all tax flows from production....no matter however it is wrapped up by
>> the tax gatherers...
>
>But not all is the product due to labour. This was Marx's central flaw.
marx is non-sense....
> If
>you doubt that 99% tax on returns to land would not effect economic
>productivity then read Adam Smith.
it is impossible to ascribe profits separately to land....
>If you start at year zero, and parachute in twenty people onto more
>productive land and twenty other people onto less productive land and come
>back twenty years later, if absolutely everything else is equal (talent,
>effort, luck, amount and quality of labour expended by each individual) the
>first group will end up wealthier, in aggregate, than the second.
approximately reasonable i suppose....
but your term 'productive' does not differentiate a coal mine from a
factory from a row of carrots...
> To whom is
>that excess, that difference, rightly due? That is what BOTH the return to
>land AND the return to capital (ie. return to improved land) actually are.
>That's what Marx's "surplus value of labour" actually is.
i think you are hoping for the impossible....
value is attribute by purchasers...or perhaps if you strain....by the
market...
it is not (usefully) attributed by labour input or by land value....
>Of course when I say land I mean it in the economic sense, including, for
>example, oil.
>
>"The oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq" - Colin Powell
i don't agree with powell's posture....or even postulate....
it wasn't the people of irak who developed the oil....
and many of those who did develop it are long ded....
i regard the present approaches to 'economics' as mostly bull....
what dodgy roots they do have, are in christianism and other cults...
not in clear reasoning...
regards.
Energumen
So is AstraZeneca Plc owned by nobody?
>
>>>>As I have wondered whether the free market could be retained while
>>>>still respecting the natural right to land of the group and thereby
>>>>doing
>>>>away with capitalism by altering the axiomatic property rights of the
>>>>free
>>>>market capitalist system. Even if it were not possible, if we must have
>>>>a
>>>>mixed economy anyway it is more just to shift the burden of taxation
>>>>away
>>>>from returns to labour and onto returns to land (99% tax rate wouldn't
>>>>hurt
>>>>the economy at all) and returns to capital.
>>>
>>> all tax flows from production....no matter however it is wrapped up by
>>> the tax gatherers...
>>
>>But not all is the product due to labour. This was Marx's central flaw.
>
> marx is non-sense....
It's not nonsense, it's simply conceptually flawed. It's well worth
studying, and historically important.
>
>> If
>>you doubt that 99% tax on returns to land would not effect economic
>>productivity then read Adam Smith.
>
> it is impossible to ascribe profits separately to land....
It is done every day. It's called charging a rent for it in a market.
>
>>If you start at year zero, and parachute in twenty people onto more
>>productive land and twenty other people onto less productive land and come
>>back twenty years later, if absolutely everything else is equal (talent,
>>effort, luck, amount and quality of labour expended by each individual)
>>the
>>first group will end up wealthier, in aggregate, than the second.
>
> approximately reasonable i suppose....
> but your term 'productive' does not differentiate a coal mine from a
> factory from a row of carrots...
I am not differentiating them. I have no need or desire to do so. All are
land, whether improved land (capital) or not. The distinction is whether you
rent something or you sell it.
>
>> To whom is
>>that excess, that difference, rightly due? That is what BOTH the return to
>>land AND the return to capital (ie. return to improved land) actually are.
>>That's what Marx's "surplus value of labour" actually is.
>
> i think you are hoping for the impossible....
> value is attribute by purchasers...or perhaps if you strain....by the
> market...
> it is not (usefully) attributed by labour input or by land value....
I am not at all disagreeing that value is attributed by purchasers. A 99%
tax on returns to land would retain a land market, not affect land values at
all and would raise a total public revenue of about 15-20% of GDP. That's
before capital returns are even addressed (if we feel the need to).
Personally I don't have much of a problem with people getting rich without
really deserving it - I don't have a fundamental problem with the national
lottery for example. I do resent that the government taxes the returns to
people's labour.
>
>>Of course when I say land I mean it in the economic sense, including, for
>>example, oil.
>>
>>"The oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq" - Colin Powell
>
> i don't agree with powell's posture....or even postulate....
> it wasn't the people of irak who developed the oil....
> and many of those who did develop it are long ded....
Well whoever it was it certainly wasn't Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Saudi
princes or Rockefeller. The fact is that not all of the value of the oil was
developed by anyone. This is why you are falling into the same trap as Marx.
Not all value is attributable to somebodies labour. That is the basic
conceptual flaw in Marxism.
Mikein...@aol.com
alternatives. Higher taxation yet than under Labour or new restrictions
upon the richer getting benefits of various kinds including say
hospital care or lastly the same burden of taxation with higher rates
for the richer and vice versa. For example a much higher personal
allowance together with a higher basic rate. The last is the most
preferable since it provides an incentive to work when there is the
alternative of benefits. Anyone visiting a Job Centre can see the
disincentive of min wage jobs.
But of course wages at the bottom end are being kept down by
immigration. Does Letwin propose to stop this process and annoy his
business chums in the City? Or are we to have massive immigration with
yet more taxes to compensate and 'make things nice'?
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>>But not all is the product due to labour. This was Marx's central flaw.
>>
>> marx is non-sense....
>
>It's not nonsense, it's simply conceptually flawed. It's well worth
>studying, and historically important.
it is non-sense....in terms of economics no serious person gives it
house room....
you will find marx never quoted in modern economics texts other
than in passing slights...
>>
>>> If
>>>you doubt that 99% tax on returns to land would not effect economic
>>>productivity then read Adam Smith.
>>
>> it is impossible to ascribe profits separately to land....
>
>It is done every day. It's called charging a rent for it in a market.
no it isn't....tax is assigned to various classes of land....
the real criterion being the assessment of the ability of the holder
to pay...and keep paying....
>>>If you start at year zero, and parachute in twenty people onto more
>>>productive land and twenty other people onto less productive land and come
>>>back twenty years later, if absolutely everything else is equal (talent,
>>>effort, luck, amount and quality of labour expended by each individual)
>>>the
>>>first group will end up wealthier, in aggregate, than the second.
>>
>> approximately reasonable i suppose....
>> but your term 'productive' does not differentiate a coal mine from a
>> factory from a row of carrots...
>
>I am not differentiating them. I have no need or desire to do so. All are
>land, whether improved land (capital) or not. The distinction is whether you
>rent something or you sell it.
no idea what you are on about here...nor why you are on about it...
>>> To whom is
>>>that excess, that difference, rightly due? That is what BOTH the return to
>>>land AND the return to capital (ie. return to improved land) actually are.
>>>That's what Marx's "surplus value of labour" actually is.
>>
>> i think you are hoping for the impossible....
>> value is attribute by purchasers...or perhaps if you strain....by the
>> market...
>> it is not (usefully) attributed by labour input or by land value....
>
>I am not at all disagreeing that value is attributed by purchasers. A 99%
>tax on returns to land would retain a land market, not affect land values at
>all and would raise a total public revenue of about 15-20% of GDP. That's
>before capital returns are even addressed (if we feel the need to).
>Personally I don't have much of a problem with people getting rich without
>really deserving it - I don't have a fundamental problem with the national
>lottery for example. I do resent that the government taxes the returns to
>people's labour.
let me return again...
all tax comes from production...it matters not where in the cycle
you apply it other than where you apply it distorting markets....
you said above 'returns to land'....how do you intend to decide which
part of 'returns' (whatever exactly that may mean) are to be
attributed to 'land'
>>>Of course when I say land I mean it in the economic sense, including, for
>>>example, oil.
>>>
>>>"The oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq" - Colin Powell
>>
>> i don't agree with powell's posture....or even postulate....
>> it wasn't the people of irak who developed the oil....
>> and many of those who did develop it are long ded....
>
>Well whoever it was it certainly wasn't Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Saudi
>princes or Rockefeller.
oh, rockefeller certainly played a part...
the others..indeed, of course not....
> The fact is that not all of the value of the oil was
>developed by anyone. This is why you are falling into the same trap as Marx.
>Not all value is attributable to somebodies labour. That is the basic
>conceptual flaw in Marxism.
you are generalising....i've made no particular attribution yet beyond
that of rockefeller and he is long buried...
as for the labour of present oil-field workers...the market is setting
their wages but the resource produced by those workers and
by the capitalist machine which backs them is vastly greater
than those wages....
i don't understand what is in your mind....but imv it is a pattern
rather detached from realities...
you'd be better considering some items:-
what problem concerns you and why
how do you want to solve these alleged problems
meanwhile the assembled productive machine is just about
as attached to human efforts as is the growth of a wheat
field under the sun and the rain....
(there is attachment....but it is only a small part of the inputs
tending to the results)
you don't seem to understand that a human unassisted by oil (from past
vegetation growth) and unassisted by the capitalist machine would
generate a standard of living that would put western humans back
some hundreds of years.
it is not the labour of those humans that generate the production
other than in very small part...every human in the west has an
estimated 100 slaves (some claim a larger number) working continuously
for them in the form of fossil fuels and machinery....
this has therefore nothing much to do with 'labour value' or 'land value'
or any such nonsense...
regards...
Energumen
The salient point is that I am not advocating anything other than private
authority to dictate when, how and by whom land or capital is used. That is
no business of the government and is to be left to the individuals who have
title to that land to do that which is most economically beneficial to them.
The tragedy of the commons relates to common *use*. Therefore it does not
occur in this scenario any more than it occurs between the shareholders of
AstraZeneca Plc. Just as I have no right to walk into the headquarters of
AstraZeneca Plc and start using one of their computers merely because I am a
shareholder neither does any citizen in the scenario have the right to use
land against the wishes of those who own it's title and pay it's public
rent, or for that matter even step onto it.
Energumen
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:14:00 -0000, "Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>
>>>>But not all is the product due to labour. This was Marx's central flaw.
>>>
>>> marx is non-sense....
>>
>>It's not nonsense, it's simply conceptually flawed. It's well worth
>>studying, and historically important.
>
> it is non-sense....in terms of economics no serious person gives it
> house room....
> you will find marx never quoted in modern economics texts other
> than in passing slights...
That does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from studying it. If
nothing else consider it a mathematical exercise and training that can be
used in other contexts. Of course understanding it is also important in
order to debate with Marxists.
>
>>>
>>>> If
>>>>you doubt that 99% tax on returns to land would not effect economic
>>>>productivity then read Adam Smith.
>>>
>>> it is impossible to ascribe profits separately to land....
>>
>>It is done every day. It's called charging a rent for it in a market.
>
> no it isn't....tax is assigned to various classes of land....
> the real criterion being the assessment of the ability of the holder
> to pay...and keep paying....
We are talking about profits to land, not tax. The profits are that which
are given *in exchange* for the use of the land in the market.
>
>>>>If you start at year zero, and parachute in twenty people onto more
>>>>productive land and twenty other people onto less productive land and
>>>>come
>>>>back twenty years later, if absolutely everything else is equal (talent,
>>>>effort, luck, amount and quality of labour expended by each individual)
>>>>the
>>>>first group will end up wealthier, in aggregate, than the second.
>>>
>>> approximately reasonable i suppose....
>>> but your term 'productive' does not differentiate a coal mine from a
>>> factory from a row of carrots...
>>
>>I am not differentiating them. I have no need or desire to do so. All are
>>land, whether improved land (capital) or not. The distinction is whether
>>you
>>rent something or you sell it.
>
> no idea what you are on about here...nor why you are on about it...
Land is simply a non-human physical object which has market value to human
beings. Therefore all three of the things you mention are land. The factory
is capital - ie. land that has been made more valuable by the action of
previous human labour. Is capital land? I don't really care about what
labels we give things as long as we understand what we are saying.
>
>>>> To whom is
>>>>that excess, that difference, rightly due? That is what BOTH the return
>>>>to
>>>>land AND the return to capital (ie. return to improved land) actually
>>>>are.
>>>>That's what Marx's "surplus value of labour" actually is.
>>>
>>> i think you are hoping for the impossible....
>>> value is attribute by purchasers...or perhaps if you strain....by the
>>> market...
>>> it is not (usefully) attributed by labour input or by land value....
>>
>>I am not at all disagreeing that value is attributed by purchasers. A 99%
>>tax on returns to land would retain a land market, not affect land values
>>at
>>all and would raise a total public revenue of about 15-20% of GDP. That's
>>before capital returns are even addressed (if we feel the need to).
>>Personally I don't have much of a problem with people getting rich without
>>really deserving it - I don't have a fundamental problem with the national
>>lottery for example. I do resent that the government taxes the returns to
>>people's labour.
>
> let me return again...
> all tax comes from production...it matters not where in the cycle
> you apply it other than where you apply it distorting markets....
Look at the link,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7107
and clearly see the difference between returns to capital and land (the
Pareto distribution) and the returns to labour (the gas law distribution).
The first is due to people "owning" non-human things and charging other
people to use them (while retaining ownership to themselves). The other is
due to people exchanging their labour with others for other things.
You are again thinking like a Marxist - attributing all wealth to labour.
Wealth is indeed in the eye of the beholder (purchaser), but it is not only
labour that is valued. Ownership of non-human property can give you income
without you contributing any labour in exchange for it.
>
> you said above 'returns to land'....how do you intend to decide which
> part of 'returns' (whatever exactly that may mean) are to be
> attributed to 'land'
The returns to land are those that are given in return for it's use in the
market. Just as the returns to labour are those that are given in exchange
for that labour in the market for labour.
>
>>>>Of course when I say land I mean it in the economic sense, including,
>>>>for
>>>>example, oil.
>>>>
>>>>"The oil of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq" - Colin Powell
>>>
>>> i don't agree with powell's posture....or even postulate....
>>> it wasn't the people of irak who developed the oil....
>>> and many of those who did develop it are long ded....
>>
>>Well whoever it was it certainly wasn't Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Saudi
>>princes or Rockefeller.
>
> oh, rockefeller certainly played a part...
What about fossilised vegetation playing a part? Can you not see that a
thing can have value in itself without anyone applying any labour to it?
Still thinking like a Marxist I see.
> the others..indeed, of course not....
>
>> The fact is that not all of the value of the oil was
>>developed by anyone. This is why you are falling into the same trap as
>>Marx.
>>Not all value is attributable to somebodies labour. That is the basic
>>conceptual flaw in Marxism.
>
> you are generalising....i've made no particular attribution yet beyond
> that of rockefeller and he is long buried...
> as for the labour of present oil-field workers...the market is setting
> their wages but the resource produced by those workers and
> by the capitalist machine which backs them is vastly greater
> than those wages....
Yes, and the difference between the two is the value of the land (oil) which
is not attributable to anyone's labour. That value is of course determined
by a market just as the value of the labour is.
>
> i don't understand what is in your mind....but imv it is a pattern
> rather detached from realities...
>
> you'd be better considering some items:-
> what problem concerns you and why
> how do you want to solve these alleged problems
>
> meanwhile the assembled productive machine is just about
> as attached to human efforts as is the growth of a wheat
> field under the sun and the rain....
> (there is attachment....but it is only a small part of the inputs
> tending to the results)
>
> you don't seem to understand that a human unassisted by oil (from past
> vegetation growth) and unassisted by the capitalist machine would
> generate a standard of living that would put western humans back
> some hundreds of years.
I am not advocating that we should not use oil and partake in industrial
production.
> it is not the labour of those humans that generate the production
> other than in very small part...every human in the west has an
> estimated 100 slaves (some claim a larger number) working continuously
> for them in the form of fossil fuels and machinery....
The value of the land or capital, independant of the value of the labour of
those using it. Exactly what I'm saying.
>
> this has therefore nothing much to do with 'labour value' or 'land value'
> or any such nonsense...
"Labour value" or "land value" is simply that which is given in exchange for
them in a market. Why do you object to the terms? That's all it means.
Acute Angina
"Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:411sslF...@individual.net...
> Ian Bailey wrote:
> > DVH wrote:
> >
> >> "The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to
narrow
> >> the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy
> >> chief,
> >> says today.
> >>
> >> In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course,
inequality
> >> matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich
> >> and
> >> poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
> >>
> >
> > I'd have thought an intelligent man like Letwin wouldn't embarrass
> > himself by confusing the words "widen" and "narrow" like that. Next
> > thing you know someone will accuse the Tories of caring for the poor!
>
> You make the same silly mistake all socialists make, you confuse the
desire
> to spend other peoples money on the poor with caring for the poor. Its
easy
> to care when somebody else is paying.
>
> Conservatives have argued that the State is not a very good means to help
> people in poverty. The complexity of the welfare system encourages
> ignorance, want, idleness and fecklessness.
>
You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
through equal opportunities to create wealth.
Acute Angina
"Ian Bailey" <a690hou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135335517....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gaz wrote:
>
> > Ian Bailey wrote:
> > > DVH wrote:
> > >
> > >> "The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to
narrow
> > >> the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy
> > >> chief,
> > >> says today.
> > >>
> > >> In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course,
inequality
> > >> matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between
rich
> > >> and
> > >> poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
> > >>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/23/nletwin23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/23/ixportaltop.html
> > >
> > > I'd have thought an intelligent man like Letwin wouldn't embarrass
> > > himself by confusing the words "widen" and "narrow" like that. Next
> > > thing you know someone will accuse the Tories of caring for the poor!
> >
> > You make the same silly mistake all socialists make, you confuse the
desire
> > to spend other peoples money on the poor with caring for the poor. Its
easy
> > to care when somebody else is paying.
>
> welfare state whilst simultaniously making life as shit as possible for
> the millions she made dependant on it.
What was the alternative?
> > Conservatives have argued that the State is not a very good means to
help
> > people in poverty. The complexity of the welfare system encourages
> > ignorance, want, idleness and fecklessness.
>
> None of which means that in the 80s the Tories gave a fuck about the
> poor. Wonderful though private provision may be for those who can
> afford it, for the poor sods left behind it means crumbling resources
> getting worse.
Precisely why Labour got in. Precisely why Cameron
saw the need to modernise.
Acute Angina
>
> DVH wrote:
>
> > "The Tories should support the redistribution of wealth and try to
narrow
> > the gap between rich and poor, Oliver Letwin, the party's new policy
chief,
> > says today.
> >
> > In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he says: "Of course,
inequality
> > matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich
and
> > poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets.""
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/23/nletwin23.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/23/ixportaltop.html
>
> I'd have thought an intelligent man like Letwin wouldn't embarrass
> himself by confusing the words "widen" and "narrow" like that.
Apparently an intelligent man like Letwin with intelligent ideas
needs an intelligent audience to be appreciated.
> Next thing you know someone will accuse the Tories of caring for
> the poor!
Caring ABOUT the poor need not be contradictory to
Conservative values, with or without the modernising
influence of Cameron, Letwin et al.
Caring FOR the poor used to mean cradle-to-grave
welfare state directly funded by high taxes. On a purely
financial footing, robbing the rich (either self-made or
through inheritance) to pay the poor should not be seen
as anything other than a flawed philosophy made less
insufferable by its altruistic objectives. The provided
safety net encourages idleness, complacency, inefficiency
with adverse impact on productivity. It is a unfair
mechanism paradoxically devised to address the products
of inequalities and injustices.
Caring ABOUT the poor means removing social and
class barriers. There is no reason why narrowing the
wealth gap can not be acheived through creating jobs,
providing better education and ensuring equal
opportunities for all. For each and every able individual,
narrowing the wealth gap should be a productivity
incentive, not a free meal ticket.
Energumen
news:43ac5a89$0$27196$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>>
>> value is attribute by purchasers...or perhaps if you strain....by the
>> market...
>> it is not (usefully) attributed by labour input or by land value....
>
> I am not at all disagreeing that value is attributed by purchasers. A 99%
> tax on returns to land would retain a land market, not affect land values
> at all and would raise a total public revenue of about 15-20% of GDP.
> That's before capital returns are even addressed (if we feel the need to).
The beauty of "taxing" fixed space unimproved land in particular is that it
is a fixed quantity with a vertical supply curve. This is why it has been so
attractive as a method of taxing unearned income by people such as Adam
Smith, John Stuart Mill, Henry George and others.
"A tax upon ground rents . would fall altogether upon the owner of the
ground rent. .Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in
order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be
given to any sort of industry."
Adam Smith.
"The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of
an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the
individual who might hold title."
John Stuart Mill.
http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/FoldvaryIntellectualTyrannyApril2005.pdf
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
DVH
"Acute Angina" <Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:fk2rf.40881$Cj5....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
There's no reason why providing an equal opportunity to create wealth should
narrow the wealth gap. Everyone could make a lot of money, then be taxed
unequally. Also, people have differing motivations and abilities, and
offering them equal opportunities to create wealth would lead to greater
disparity.
There are two ways to narrow the gap between rich and poor, if that's a
desirable thing. One is to steal money from some and give it to others. The
other is to put up barriers to making money in the first place.
Gaz
> You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
> through equal opportunities to create wealth.
Meaningless twaddle. Socialism makes everyone equal, equally poor.
Gaz
Acute Angina
argument. You clearly do not understand the meaning
of the word.
Acute Angina
"DVH" <dav...@vhvhvhvhvh.com> wrote in message
news:doj020$6vm$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Wealth differential would always exist in any socioeconomic
and/or political system where personal ownership is
permitted. That would be true even in the most egalitarian
models where all earnings are identical regardless of
vocation. People simply do not have the same thriftiness
or propensity towards hoarding things.
Wealth differential is necessary in capitalism as a driving
force for productivity. The moral aim is to reduce
wealth gap to a fairer level. It would be impractical and
unrealistic in every sense to try and eradicate it. It's easier
to eradicate poverty, it's practically impossible to remove
the wealth gap altogether. Total eradication of the wealth
gap is not desireable as an objective.
The same argument applies equally to taxes. Where equal
opportunities exist, the moral justification for uneven
taxes is weakened. People are so obsessed with the political
football that tax is, they forget the pay packet is perhaps
a fairer and just as efficient vehicle for wealth redistribution.
Taxes as effective short term solutions are not ideal for
long term problems.
Equal opportunities to create wealth do not simply mean
having the same chances to certain profession or calling at
birth. It is right that people should reap financial rewards
according to their motivation and abilities. That does not
excuse the need to examine how those rewards could be
made fairer in order not to exclude certain sections of the
public currently entrenched in poverty. In an equal
opportunity job market, we may need to re-evaluate
remuneration differences between white-collar and blue-
collar workers for example. That approach might be too
much of an anathema to some people.
AlanG
Don't be so stupid.
Socialism is like every other 'ism. The shit on the top of the pile
get it all
Mikein...@aol.com
> poor. Wonderful though private provision may be for those who can
> afford it, for the poor sods left behind it means crumbling resources
> getting worse.
Precisely why Labour got in. Precisely why Cameron
saw the need to modernise. >
Eh what? There was a huge recession during the Tory last years which
destroyed their reputation. Without it they'd still be in power.
Acute Angina
"AlanG" <ohovnws...@web.de> wrote in message
news:5g4oq1d97f529vbg4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:52:43 +0100, abelard <abel...@abelard.org>
> wrote:
>
> You should know anyway. You're a socialist.
> Whichever way you twist it a society needs some socialist bits to
> operate. Without it you have anarchy and collapse. The argument is
> always going to be on how much socialism we need. What do we need to
> do collectively for the survival of the society we live in.
>
Socialist ideologies are seen as the solutions to the
perceived need for large scale co-operation in societies
where unavoidable interdependence and interconnections
are forced upon the public as a result of urbanisation
and/or industrialisation in comparison with the relative self-
sufficiencies enjoyed by, say, hunter gatherers. Some
amongst us might want to throw in free trade and
globalisation as the dreaded bogeymen at this point.
The driving force behind the dynamicism and urgency in
unashamedly capitalistic societies also bequeath with it
social conditions where chaos threaten to thrive. A
quick glance through history would provide all the
examples needed. On the other hand, socialism could
cause stagnation without giving the desired peace and
stability it was meant to confer.
Scorpius
You can't get ahead unless there is an economic heirarchy stretching
from the very poor to the very rich.
Egalitarianism is for insects.
--
"There are two kinds of truth, small truth and great truth. You
can recognize a small truth because its opposite is a falsehood.
The opposite of a great truth is another truth."
-- Niels Bohr
Scorpius
<Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>> > You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
>> > through equal opportunities to create wealth.
>> Meaningless twaddle. Socialism makes everyone equal, equally poor.
> Please convince me what's written above is a socialist
> argument. You clearly do not understand the meaning
> of the word.
Read "Animal Farm".
mma...@my-deja.com
> Socialism is like every other 'ism. The shit on the top of the pile
> get it all
The funny thing is, the 'rich' socialist scum at the top of the pile
are vastly poorer than the rich scum in capitalist nations. Socialism
harms everyone, even the ruling scum.
Mark
Energumen
Agreed.
> That would be true even in the most egalitarian
> models where all earnings are identical regardless of
> vocation. People simply do not have the same thriftiness
> or propensity towards hoarding things.
>
> Wealth differential is necessary in capitalism as a driving
> force for productivity.
Not really, what is required that if you do more work that you get more pay.
Wealth *differentials* are not a driving force just a corollary.
> The moral aim is to reduce
> wealth gap to a fairer level.
The moral aim should be that people are rewarded in accordance with, and
commensurate with, their contribution to others. The value of such a
contribution being measured in what those others will freely give in
exchange for it. Having a large, or a small, wealth gap is not a good or bad
thing in itself. "Small" and "large" are rather vague concepts anyway until
you put a magnitude on it.
> It would be impractical and
> unrealistic in every sense to try and eradicate it. It's easier
> to eradicate poverty, it's practically impossible to remove
> the wealth gap altogether. Total eradication of the wealth
> gap is not desireable as an objective.
>
> The same argument applies equally to taxes. Where equal
> opportunities exist, the moral justification for uneven
> taxes is weakened.
Not necessarily. You seem to assume that where opportunities are equal that
wealth will accrue evenly, or roughly evenly. This is not true, and would
still not be true even if ability and effort were equal for all as well.
See,
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2906&t=finance
you need to do the actual maths. In capitalism income can be taken merely
for owning existing wealth without effort. Such wealth can be reinvested in
a continuous cycle. This is why some individuals can have incomes that are
millions of times those of others.
> People are so obsessed with the political
> football that tax is, they forget the pay packet is perhaps
> a fairer and just as efficient vehicle for wealth redistribution.
Why should anyone's wages be taxed? Particularly when there is so much
unearned income that could be taxed instead. I would also tend to prefer
that if wealth is to be distributed that it is simply given as a dividend to
all citizens rather than spent for them by the government, but I don't agree
with paying people for being poor as such.
> Taxes as effective short term solutions are not ideal for
> long term problems.
>
> Equal opportunities to create wealth do not simply mean
> having the same chances to certain profession or calling at
> birth. It is right that people should reap financial rewards
> according to their motivation and abilities. That does not
> excuse the need to examine how those rewards could be
> made fairer in order not to exclude certain sections of the
> public currently entrenched in poverty. In an equal
> opportunity job market, we may need to re-evaluate
> remuneration differences between white-collar and blue-
> collar workers for example. That approach might be too
> much of an anathema to some people.
So if my painter and decorator is to be paid more to make him more like my
lawyer, how are you going to stop all three of us coming to private
agreements about what should be paid for what work? Is the government going
to come in and tell me to pay the painter and decorator more even if I know
it is worth his while to do the work for less and he would be freely willing
to do so? What on earth does "re-evaluate remuneration differences between
white-collar and blue-collar workers" mean? Such remuneration is part of a
contract between persons.
Energumen
news:43ad5a46....@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:18:53 -0000, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Acute Angina wrote:
>>
>>> You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
>>> through equal opportunities to create wealth.
>>
>>Meaningless twaddle. Socialism makes everyone equal, equally poor.
>
> You can't get ahead unless there is an economic heirarchy stretching
> from the very poor to the very rich.
>
> Egalitarianism is for insects.
>
>
Total egalitarianism is wrong. However capitalism does not reward in
accordance with effort, talent and even luck. It is a system rather akin to
feudal land ownership. This should be blatently obvious since we live in a
world were the richest have incomes that are millions of times more than the
poorest, the top 1% owning about half the wealth, while talent and effort
and will are obviously more evenly distributed.
You say that there must be a hiererchy of wealth. I agree, but which
hierarchy in particular, or will any old hierarchy do?
abelard
typed:
my impression from the above is that you are terming as 'land' what
i would call sommat like 'productivity minus current/recent labour
inputs'....
this seems convoluted and lacking in communication effectiveness
to me....because...>>
it also imv comes from 'the wrong direction'....in the sense that markets
are driven by perceived values...not from ideas of 'labour' or even
'production'....
i'm at a bit of a loss to get you to follow my intention here...
it's a bit like (analogy) trying to value a 'car in terms of the various
raw materials rather than in terms of why a person would buy the
object (its use value perhaps in your marxist jargon)
regards..
Gaz
Well, you have a politiburo who make sure they get what they want, in a
capitalist soceity you end up with a small percent of super rich people,
maybe 3 to 5%, you have another 30% who are very very comfortable, 40% who
live a comfortable life, but life is sometimes a struggle, but essentially
they dont go hungry, and have a roof over their heads, and you have about
25% of people who lifes existance is a daily miserable experience.
In a socialist society, you have a small number of people who are super
rich, probably a half a percent or so, you have 10 to 20% of people who are
comfortable, and 80% of people with an existance which is a daily miserable
experience.
Even this is relative, those on a miserable existence in a capitalist
society would probably have a lifestyle that met the standard of comfortable
in a socialist one.
Gaz
Gaz
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:18:53 -0000, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Acute Angina wrote:
>>
>>> You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
>>> through equal opportunities to create wealth.
>>
>> Meaningless twaddle. Socialism makes everyone equal, equally poor.
>
> You can't get ahead unless there is an economic heirarchy stretching
> from the very poor to the very rich.
>
> Egalitarianism is for insects.
Continuously we here about public institutions bleating about 'health
inequalities', these are just statistics, if those middle class people
started to live their lives like their underclass neigbours and they to died
a few years earlier then average, health inequalities would have been
narrowed.
See? meaningless.
Gaz
Scorpius
<Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> Socialist ideologies are seen as the solutions to the
> perceived need for large scale co-operation in societies
> where unavoidable interdependence and interconnections
> are forced upon the public as a result of urbanisation
> and/or industrialisation
Then how come Houston is not socialist.
Scorpius
<ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Total egalitarianism is wrong. However capitalism does not reward in
>accordance with effort, talent and even luck.
That's where public regulators come in when monopolies form.
>the richest have incomes that are millions of times more than the
>poorest, the top 1% owning about half the wealth
And what would happen if you prevented the wealthiest from
accumulating that level of wealth?
>while talent and effort and will are obviously more evenly distributed.
That is not obvious at all. In fact all the evidence points to the
fact that most people are not talented.
It takes a certain kind of person to make a substantive contribution
to the economy. Most people are not that kind of person.
Only about 5% of people who work are superproductive - the remaining
95% just reap the benefits. If the 5% superproductive people
disappeared, the economy would collapse overnight.
Man is a herd animal, and only certain kinds of people are willing to
be on the perimeter where they are exposed to uncertainty. The rest
cower in the safety of the inner part of the herd.
>You say that there must be a hiererchy of wealth. I agree, but which
>hierarchy in particular, or will any old hierarchy do?
The one that has the widest span. That way there is the widest range
of opportunity in between the top and the bottom.
Energumen
No, let's try again.
Land is any non-human thing which has a market value. Or indeed any
non-human thing for that matter even if it's market value is zero. This is
*my* definition. To a pure Georgist it has a somewhat different meaning. To
me, as indeed to a lot of economists land and capital are to be treated as
one. Whereas they usually lump land into the term capital I lump capital
into the term land. Capital is just land whose value in use to production
(which is *entirely* a matter of the market) has been increased by the
application of somebodies previous labour.
The *return to land* which is what you seem to be talking about above is
what an owner of a piece of land gets from renting that land in the market.
By renting is meant letting someone use it for a given time period in
exchange for a payment. This is not to be confused with selling, since
selling is the transfer of ownership of the land to another party in
exchange for a payment. Renting is simply letting someone use it for a time
without the right of ownership passing to the other party.
>
> this seems convoluted and lacking in communication effectiveness
> to me....because...>>
> it also imv comes from 'the wrong direction'....in the sense that markets
> are driven by perceived values...not from ideas of 'labour' or even
> 'production'....
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING! You seem not to recognise that land has
a value independent of being "caused" by somebodies labour. That value *IS*
determined by the demand for it, but no labour, past or present, need be
involved in that. It can have a value before any hand has ever touched it,
or even any eye seen it - because it can be in demand.
>
> i'm at a bit of a loss to get you to follow my intention here...
> it's a bit like (analogy) trying to value a 'car in terms of the various
> raw materials rather than in terms of why a person would buy the
> object (its use value perhaps in your marxist jargon)
I understand what you are saying. You clearly do not understand me. The
value of a thing is entirely a result of people wanting it. But the value of
a car cannot be entirely and completely "matched" to exchanges in return for
peoples labour (the Marxist fallacy) since the land within that car does /
did still have a value by itself (caused entirely by people wanting it)
independant of anyone's labour.
AlanG
Would you rather be poor in Russia, poor in Brazil or poor in Cuba?
AlanG
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:43:41 GMT, "Acute Angina"
><Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>
>> Socialist ideologies are seen as the solutions to the
>> perceived need for large scale co-operation in societies
>> where unavoidable interdependence and interconnections
>> are forced upon the public as a result of urbanisation
>> and/or industrialisation
>
>Then how come Houston is not socialist.
Of course it is.
NASA.
Education.
Roads.
Law enforcement.
Public health.
What the hell do you pay your taxes for if not for socialist projects?
Energumen
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:04:22 -0000, "Energumen"
> <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Total egalitarianism is wrong. However capitalism does not reward in
>>accordance with effort, talent and even luck.
>
> That's where public regulators come in when monopolies form.
Rubbish. Capitalism itself does not reward in proportion to effort and
talent even on paper / computer model. Nothing to do with monopolies
forming.
>
>>the richest have incomes that are millions of times more than the
>>poorest, the top 1% owning about half the wealth
>
> And what would happen if you prevented the wealthiest from
> accumulating that level of wealth?
It depends entirely on what way you do it. Hopefully you do realise that
Capitalism is not the only possible economic system that incorporates a free
market.
>
>>while talent and effort and will are obviously more evenly distributed.
>
> That is not obvious at all. In fact all the evidence points to the
> fact that most people are not talented.
>
> It takes a certain kind of person to make a substantive contribution
> to the economy. Most people are not that kind of person.
>
> Only about 5% of people who work are superproductive - the remaining
> 95% just reap the benefits. If the 5% superproductive people
> disappeared, the economy would collapse overnight.
Complete bollocks. To believe such a thing would require great gullibility
of the highest order.
Are you seriously telling me that talent is distributed on a Pareto
distribution?
http://www.amazonian-fish.co.uk/images/pareto2.jpg
I'd be more inclined to believe that Tony Blair is the lovechild of Elvis
and the Loch Ness monster.
In any case in a capitalist system wealth and income will form into a Pareto
distribution NO MATTER WHAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT AND EFFORT IS AMONGST
THE POPULATION.
Read this, digest it, and understand it. It is not some Marxist tract, it is
the Harvard Business Review,
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2906&t=finance
Now read this, digest it, and understand it. Again it is not some Marxist
tract, it is New Scientist magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7107
Now understand this fact - WEALTH AND INCOME WILL FORM INTO A PARETO
DISTRIBUTION IN MARKET CAPITALISM NO MATTER WHAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT
AND EFFORT IS AMONGST THE POPULATION.
Now understand why your idea that only a small proportion of people are
superproductive is a piece of fairy tale nonsense equivalent to some Marxist
utopia of the proletariat.
Is this a problem? Perhaps some would say it isn't. I would not necessarily
begrudge a multimillionaire businessman his wealth more than I would a
multimillionaire lottery winner. But let's have less of the fairy tales, and
more of the real world.
Gaz
None have the necessary established legal frameworks of property rights and
enforcement, and are not capitalist.
Gaz
AlanG
So you'd be happy if someone owned all the land in the UK and evicted
you?
Gaz
Are you on crack?
gaz
Paul Hyett
>>
>>>Total egalitarianism is wrong. However capitalism does not reward in
>>>accordance with effort, talent and even luck.
>>
>> That's where public regulators come in when monopolies form.
>
>Rubbish. Capitalism itself does not reward in proportion to effort and
>talent even on paper / computer model. Nothing to do with monopolies
>forming.
>
programmer, but if you were an introvert or social misfit, then certain
opportunities would always be closed to you.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:12:41 GMT, "Acute Angina"
><Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>
>>> > You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
>>> > through equal opportunities to create wealth.
>
>>> Meaningless twaddle. Socialism makes everyone equal, equally poor.
>
>> Please convince me what's written above is a socialist
>> argument. You clearly do not understand the meaning
>> of the word.
>
>Read "Animal Farm".
He's now been nicknamed 'Oliver Leftwing'
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>Only about 5% of people who work are superproductive - the remaining
>95% just reap the benefits. If the 5% superproductive people
>disappeared, the economy would collapse overnight.
>
>Man is a herd animal, and only certain kinds of people are willing to
>be on the perimeter where they are exposed to uncertainty. The rest
>cower in the safety of the inner part of the herd.
There's a factor you have missed - it far easier to be a risk-taker if
you start off with inherited wealth. That way you have a safety net if
your business ventures go tits-up.
Most people dare not take too many risks, because they have families to
support.
>
>>You say that there must be a hiererchy of wealth. I agree, but which
>>hierarchy in particular, or will any old hierarchy do?
>
>The one that has the widest span. That way there is the widest range
>of opportunity in between the top and the bottom.
Presumably you're also implying, that due to trickle-down, to bottom of
the capitalist scale will always be higher than the bottom of the
socialist scale?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Acute Angina
<Mikein...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135431965....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The fact that Labour was not in power sooner was blamed
on Neil Kinnock. They should have won the previous election.
Acute Angina
"Energumen" <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:43ad5fa5$0$63096$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> "Acute Angina" <Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote in message
> news:YWarf.227$W4...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >
> > and/or political system where personal ownership is
> > permitted.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > That would be true even in the most egalitarian
> > models where all earnings are identical regardless of
> > vocation. People simply do not have the same thriftiness
> > or propensity towards hoarding things.
> >
> > Wealth differential is necessary in capitalism as a driving
> > force for productivity.
>
> Not really, what is required that if you do more work that you get more
pay.
> Wealth *differentials* are not a driving force just a corollary.
So what makes people want to work more?
> > The moral aim is to reduce
> > wealth gap to a fairer level.
>
> The moral aim should be that people are rewarded in accordance with, and
> commensurate with, their contribution to others. The value of such a
> contribution being measured in what those others will freely give in
> exchange for it. Having a large, or a small, wealth gap is not a good or
bad
> thing in itself. "Small" and "large" are rather vague concepts anyway
until
> you put a magnitude on it.
That's one way of looking at it. This is a materialistic
approach in the extreme which ignores the need for
encouraging and developing potential, for example
children's education. It also ignores other forms of
possible contribution. Cultural and intellectual
development, scientific discoveries for example are
often contributions made in very small steps which
go unrewarded. Even consumption in itself could
contribute towards encouraging progress. Being a
member of a tribe enhances the survival prospect
of the tribe itself. The point is contribution and
benefits are not independent of society. Diminish
that society and you diminish the scope for
contribution of every single society member.
>
> > It would be impractical and
> > unrealistic in every sense to try and eradicate it. It's easier
> > to eradicate poverty, it's practically impossible to remove
> > the wealth gap altogether. Total eradication of the wealth
> > gap is not desireable as an objective.
> >
> > The same argument applies equally to taxes. Where equal
> > opportunities exist, the moral justification for uneven
> > taxes is weakened.
>
> Not necessarily. You seem to assume that where opportunities are equal
that
> wealth will accrue evenly, or roughly evenly. This is not true, and would
> still not be true even if ability and effort were equal for all as well.
> See,
> http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2906&t=finance
> you need to do the actual maths. In capitalism income can be taken merely
> for owning existing wealth without effort. Such wealth can be reinvested
in
> a continuous cycle. This is why some individuals can have incomes that are
> millions of times those of others.
Calculations are not necessary if 'equal opportunities' means
the unemployed are given jobs, or the low paid gets a decent
wage. If that is made possible, the gulf between rich and poor
would shrink. The issues involved are complex, the maths
itself could be quite elementary.
> > People are so obsessed with the political
> > football that tax is, they forget the pay packet is perhaps
> > a fairer and just as efficient vehicle for wealth redistribution.
>
> Why should anyone's wages be taxed? Particularly when there is so much
> unearned income that could be taxed instead. I would also tend to prefer
> that if wealth is to be distributed that it is simply given as a dividend
to
> all citizens rather than spent for them by the government, but I don't
agree
> with paying people for being poor as such.
This is beyond normal comprehension.
> > Taxes as effective short term solutions are not ideal for
> > long term problems.
> >
> > Equal opportunities to create wealth do not simply mean
> > having the same chances to certain profession or calling at
> > birth. It is right that people should reap financial rewards
> > according to their motivation and abilities. That does not
> > excuse the need to examine how those rewards could be
> > made fairer in order not to exclude certain sections of the
> > public currently entrenched in poverty. In an equal
> > opportunity job market, we may need to re-evaluate
> > remuneration differences between white-collar and blue-
> > collar workers for example. That approach might be too
> > much of an anathema to some people.
>
> So if my painter and decorator is to be paid more to make him more like my
> lawyer, how are you going to stop all three of us coming to private
> agreements about what should be paid for what work? Is the government
going
> to come in and tell me to pay the painter and decorator more even if I
know
> it is worth his while to do the work for less and he would be freely
willing
> to do so? What on earth does "re-evaluate remuneration differences between
> white-collar and blue-collar workers" mean? Such remuneration is part of a
> contract between persons.
Present day pay scales are inherited from the past when
education were at a premium available only to an elite few.
If more plumbers have the potential of being lawyers, any
pay disparities between the two would be adjusted
accordingly by market forces. This is not the same as
saying all plumbers have the intelligence, aptitude or desire
for a career in law.
Acute Angina
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:12:41 GMT, "Acute Angina"
> <Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> >> > You do not understand narrowing the wealth gap
> >> > through equal opportunities to create wealth.
>
> >> Meaningless twaddle. Socialism makes everyone equal, equally poor.
>
> > Please convince me what's written above is a socialist
> > argument. You clearly do not understand the meaning
> > of the word.
>
> Read "Animal Farm".
>
Scorpius
<ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Capitalism itself does not reward in proportion to effort and
>talent even on paper / computer model.
It does for entrepreuneurs if they make it.
Anyway, your indictment of capitalism, while certainly true in many
instances, is not universally true even for employees.
If a person believes they are being exploited in their current job,
they can start their own business or get a job that does reward them
properly.
Although I do not advocate a life of crime, it can pay better than the
effort involved. Whoever said 'crime doesn't pay' did not look closely
at politicians.
>It depends entirely on what way you do it. Hopefully you do realise that
>Capitalism is not the only possible economic system that incorporates a free
>market.
Crime is one - like in politics.
>http://www.amazonian-fish.co.uk/images/pareto2.jpg
What is that?
--
Merry Christmas!
Scorpius
>Would you rather be poor in Russia, poor in Brazil or poor in Cuba?
Funny, we never hear of rowboats heading towards Cuba.
Come to think of it, we rarely hear of British expats returning home.
Scorpius
>>Then how come Houston is not socialist.
>Of course it is.
>NASA.
>Education.
>Roads.
>Law enforcement.
>Public health.
>What the hell do you pay your taxes for if not for socialist projects?
NASA is mostly private contractors. NASA is a thinly-disguised
military operation.
Public Education is socialist, but all the rest is not abd it is
considerable.
Roads are mostly built by private contractors.
Law Enforcement is not a commercial enterprise.
Most public health in Houston is private. The rest is either charity,
research or teaching hospitals.
We have the most extensive health care facilities in the world at the
Texas Medical Center. There is always room for patients. even the
homeless. It costs me $125 per year in property taxes.
How much does that disease-ridden NHS cost the average taxpayer each
year. I read that 17% of income taxes go to fund the NHS and that you
can't even get a bed when you need it for open heart surgery.
AlanG
I'm just pointing out how ridiculous unrestrained capitalism is. Just
as much as unrestrained socialism. We have a mixed
socialist/capitalist economy as does every other country in the world.
All have varying degrees of each. Some more socialist and others more
capitalist.
Now stop mouthing tory party central office propaganda and cod
political theory and tell me what socialist components in UK society
you would scrap and which you would keep.
AlanG
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:02:17 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Would you rather be poor in Russia, poor in Brazil or poor in Cuba?
>
>Funny, we never hear of rowboats heading towards Cuba.
Which doesn't answer the question
>
>Come to think of it, we rarely hear of British expats returning home.
They don't tell you about it in case you try and follow them home.
AlanG
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:06:19 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>>Then how come Houston is not socialist.
>
>>Of course it is.
>>NASA.
>>Education.
>>Roads.
>>Law enforcement.
>>Public health.
>
>>What the hell do you pay your taxes for if not for socialist projects?
>
>NASA is mostly private contractors. NASA is a thinly-disguised
>military operation.
Paid for by the taxpayer so socialist
>
>Public Education is socialist, but all the rest is not abd it is
>considerable.
>
>Roads are mostly built by private contractors.
Paid for by the taxpayer so socialist
>
>Law Enforcement is not a commercial enterprise.
Paid for by the taxpayer so socialist
>
>Most public health in Houston is private. The rest is either charity,
>research or teaching hospitals.
You don't have government public health officials enforcing public
health standards?
What happens when plague strikes an area?
>
Scorpius
<p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>Presumably you're also implying, that due to trickle-down, to bottom of
>the capitalist scale will always be higher than the bottom of the
>socialist scale?
The lowest under socialism is likely to be the same as with
capitalism.
I do not believe in any 'trickle down", only upward advancement made
possible by the dynamics of the capitalist ladder of opportunity.
Every time someone becomes wealthy, it opens up opportunities for
everyone. The new-found wealth has to be spent or invested.
Ask yourself where did that new wealth come from? Did it come out of
other people's pockets or did it come into being as expansion of the
money supply thru debt?
Millionaires make new money which benefits everyone.
Scorpius
<p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes - you could be the world's most brilliant engineer or computer
>programmer, but if you were an introvert or social misfit, then certain
>opportunities would always be closed to you.
Or certain opportunities would be open to you.
Scorpius
<Moby...@madasafish.com> wrote:
>> Read "Animal Farm".
> And then what?
Read it first, then see if there is still a question.
Scorpius
>Paid for by the taxpayer so socialist
socialism has nothing to with taxpayer support.
>What happens when plague strikes an area?
That's only happened once in the 25 years I have lived in Houston -
bad flu epidemic.
If particular hospitals fill up, they send people to ones that aren't.
If all are filled up, they move patients around to make space.
Most hospitals have emergency beds that they take out of storage and
put in corridors.
Gaz
The Conservatives got more votes then any other post war party in 1992. It
wasnt close, Labour got mauled.
Gaz
Gaz
Education and Health can be funded via the State, but not provided by them.
I would take direct government provision out of the control of the state.
The State can fund the hospital and schools, but it doesnt need to employ
the teachers and nurses.
I would strip down local government of many of its existing mandates, not to
give the power up the scale, but to remove the power completely. I would
force down tax collection and welfare benefits down to local government.
Gaz
Gaz
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:17:58 GMT, sp...@uce.gov (Scorpius) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:06:19 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> Then how come Houston is not socialist.
>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>> NASA.
>>> Education.
>>> Roads.
>>> Law enforcement.
>>> Public health.
>>
>>> What the hell do you pay your taxes for if not for socialist projects?
>>
>> NASA is mostly private contractors. NASA is a thinly-disguised
>> military operation.
>
> Paid for by the taxpayer so socialist
Actually, if we are going to be pedantic, it is closer to fascist form of
collectivism. Tax is raised and spent on behalf of the state by private
business, rather then by the state.
Gaz
Gaz
> Most hospitals have emergency beds that they take out of storage and
> put in corridors.
We have redefined corridors with beds as 'wards' now, helps the figures you
see.
Gaz
Energumen
news:KenclIDm...@activist.demon.co.uk...
That is true but nothing to do with what I am talking about. Simply include
being an introvert or social misfit or otherwise into the word "talent" and
my statement still stands. My whole point is that capitalism does not only
reward in accordance with the contributions of a person's labour, and that
above a certain level that labour contribution becomes a miniscule factor in
determining a person's income.
Energumen
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:02:12 -0000, "Energumen"
> <ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Capitalism itself does not reward in proportion to effort and
>>talent even on paper / computer model.
>
> It does for entrepreuneurs if they make it.
Make what?
>
> Anyway, your indictment of capitalism, while certainly true in many
> instances, is not universally true even for employees.
>
> If a person believes they are being exploited in their current job,
> they can start their own business or get a job that does reward them
> properly.
>
> Although I do not advocate a life of crime, it can pay better than the
> effort involved. Whoever said 'crime doesn't pay' did not look closely
> at politicians.
>
>>It depends entirely on what way you do it. Hopefully you do realise that
>>Capitalism is not the only possible economic system that incorporates a
>>free
>>market.
>
> Crime is one - like in politics.
>
>>http://www.amazonian-fish.co.uk/images/pareto2.jpg
>
> What is that?
A Pareto distribution. That is what you were effectively telling me that the
distribution of talent and effort is like amongst the population - number of
people on the y axis, talent and effort on the x axis.
Paul Hyett
>>
>> The fact that Labour was not in power sooner was blamed
>> on Neil Kinnock. They should have won the previous election.
>
>The Conservatives got more votes then any other post war party in 1992. It
>wasnt close, Labour got mauled.
Depends on how you measure it - the Tories only had a majority of 21,
and in HoC terms that is what matters, not numbers of votes cast.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 07:41:26 +0000, Paul Hyett
><p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Yes - you could be the world's most brilliant engineer or computer
>>programmer, but if you were an introvert or social misfit, then certain
>>opportunities would always be closed to you.
>
>Or certain opportunities would be open to you.
But 'embarrassing yourself in social situations' is not normally
regarded as positive on a CV (résumé)... :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:02:17 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Would you rather be poor in Russia, poor in Brazil or poor in Cuba?
>
>Funny, we never hear of rowboats heading towards Cuba.
>
>Come to think of it, we rarely hear of British expats returning home.
>
Maybe Americans won't let them out? That would be a (silly) explanation
for both the above...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>>>
>> Yes - you could be the world's most brilliant engineer or computer
>> programmer, but if you were an introvert or social misfit, then certain
>> opportunities would always be closed to you.
>>
>That is true but nothing to do with what I am talking about. Simply include
>being an introvert or social misfit or otherwise into the word "talent" and
>my statement still stands. My whole point is that capitalism does not only
>reward in accordance with the contributions of a person's labour, and that
>above a certain level that labour contribution becomes a miniscule factor in
>determining a person's income.
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 07:37:04 +0000, Paul Hyett
><p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Presumably you're also implying, that due to trickle-down, to bottom of
>>the capitalist scale will always be higher than the bottom of the
>>socialist scale?
>
>The lowest under socialism is likely to be the same as with
>capitalism.
>
>I do not believe in any 'trickle down", only upward advancement made
>possible by the dynamics of the capitalist ladder of opportunity.
>Every time someone becomes wealthy, it opens up opportunities for
>everyone.
That is pretty much the definition of 'trickle-down'...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Gaz
If we are looking at this in terms of leaders (kinnock major blair etc),
then it is fair that we look at votes cast.
Gaz
Scorpius
<ener_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> It does for entrepreuneurs if they make it.
>Make what?
Become successful.
>A Pareto distribution. That is what you were effectively telling me that the
>distribution of talent and effort is like amongst the population - number of
>people on the y axis, talent and effort on the x axis.
That curve says what I said earlier - most people are untalented.
Scorpius
<p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>That is pretty much the definition of 'trickle-down'...
I prefer "climb up".
AlanG
Still socialist.
AlanG
>AlanG wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:21:16 -0000, "Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Now stop mouthing tory party central office propaganda and cod
>> political theory and tell me what socialist components in UK society
>> you would scrap and which you would keep.
>
>Education and Health can be funded via the State, but not provided by them.
So who controls them? Who sets the standards?
Either way it is still socialism with the state taking money from
everybody to pay for a service to society
>I would take direct government provision out of the control of the state.
If the government supplies the cash (as taken from the taxpayer) you
still have a socialist society.
>
>The State can fund the hospital and schools, but it doesnt need to employ
>the teachers and nurses.
It doesn't employ teachers or nurses directly now. They are employed
by supposedly autonomous local authorities and trusts. You didn't
mention police either.
>I would strip down local government of many of its existing mandates, not to
>give the power up the scale, but to remove the power completely. I would
>force down tax collection and welfare benefits down to local government.
>
So you just change the rules and get your brand of socialism rather
than someone else's. Redisitrute the burdens of taxation to favour
your own likes and dislikes. Redisitribute the wealth to favour your
own likes and dislikes.
No mention of armed forces, customs, prison services, public health,
police, judiciary or the BBsoddingC.
You're still a socialist.
>
AlanG
>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 15:53:03 GMT, AlanG <ohovnws...@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Paid for by the taxpayer so socialist
>
>socialism has nothing to with taxpayer support.
Funny definition you have of what is not socialism
>
>>What happens when plague strikes an area?
>
>That's only happened once in the 25 years I have lived in Houston -
>bad flu epidemic.
>
>If particular hospitals fill up, they send people to ones that aren't.
>If all are filled up, they move patients around to make space.
You're saying the state looks after those who don't have health
insurance?
>
>Most hospitals have emergency beds that they take out of storage and
>put in corridors.
What happens when bubonic plague hits?
AlanG
That's in the socialist republic of Texas
AlanG
<p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>In uk.politics.misc on Sun, 25 Dec 2005 at 16:35:52, Scorpius wrote :
>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 07:37:04 +0000, Paul Hyett
>><p...@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Presumably you're also implying, that due to trickle-down, to bottom of
>>>the capitalist scale will always be higher than the bottom of the
>>>socialist scale?
>>
>>The lowest under socialism is likely to be the same as with
>>capitalism.
>>
>>I do not believe in any 'trickle down", only upward advancement made
>>possible by the dynamics of the capitalist ladder of opportunity.
>>Every time someone becomes wealthy, it opens up opportunities for
>>everyone.
>
>That is pretty much the definition of 'trickle-down'...
Except those up the ladder seem to spend some of their time hacking
away at the rungs below while diverting the trickle. I worked in ana
industry where our MD made it one of his aims to influence both
national and international legislation that affected our company in a
way that benefited those already in the business.
A classic example of this can be seen in those supposedly capitalist
societies where it is boasted even the poorest can succeed. Where a
pedlar with a small stock can be arrested and his stock confiscated
because he doesn't have a pedlars permit. Shop owners don't like
street vendors cos they can undercut the shop prices. Pedlars get
banned.