Off Topic Political Debate

What muddled reasoning. Soldiers and police officers do not "create" wealth but they help create the conditions that help it grow. Research scientists do help growth when they are successful - as a percentage always are. Filipino workers are part of the wealth creating cycle around the world - they help move goods around. Thre separate groups that for some reason you have picked out and lumped together - odd. So rich people are parasites are they - is that not the same generalisation as you and others object to when it is claimed that the poor are benefit scroungers? Rich people may invest in businesses sometimes risking what they possess; many other entrepreneurs are not rich at all but beg and borrow to find the capital to invest in job creation. Some rich simply lend their money - it is theirs as much as your clothes are yours - by lending it they help create businesses that create wealth and jobs. Your argument exhibits all the hallmarks of extreme left wing views that show a total lack of understanding of how wealth is created. Cottage industry may play a small part but that is all.
Our tax system is supposed to be progressive to take more from the better off (most hardly rich) and help less well off. Workers get paid to work - if they want they could follow your road and set up their own little businesses and see if they prefer that. Nobody forces them to work for others. Your last assertion is just dogma. A child is born into a society and a family with more or less wealth they have accumulated. Tell a Nepalese child he has the equal wealth that we enjoy. Wealth may be in the Earth but it needs work and money to benefit others.
If you do not create wealth then there are no taxes to pay for the things you so desperately want to donate to others

 

What I am saying Leo is that no man is an island. Every so called entrepreneur is first and foremost a member of a society, without which he would not have become wealthy in the first place - it follows then that the whole of society is involved in the creation of wealth. The rich man needed a teacher to teach him, a nurse to keep him alive, a policeman to protect his property, workers to do the work (because without that his money is only paper), buses to transport his workers, people to build his roads, farmers to place the food on his table, he then needs a society with money (ie. demand and spending power) to pay for his products - without all of these people he is as helpless as the poorest Hotentot. Why do you pick out Nepal here ? Their present predicament has little to do with any political system and the Earthquake which has flattened their country would have crippled any Western city in the same way.

 

If I am using jargon here then please don't forget that you and others on here have used the term 'creators of wealth' on here persistently as if the term were self explanatory and the people concerned were able to conjur from nothing a little bit like God.

 

Your words not mine!! Can you define slave like conditions? I know many soldiers, police oofficers, research scientists, mechanics, teachers and nurses and not one of them works under slave like conditions in fact they all work in Britain, USA and middle eastern countries where their work is apreciated by salary enabling them to live good lives supporting families taking vacations having cars, TVs etc... Wealth will go further if it is created in the first place, your assertation that wealth is not created is a complete mistruth. We create from raw ingredients, you seem to be saying that man can/should not create but just take from nature. You do not seem to grasp that we have evolved from the stone age!!

 

Yes a middle ground if you like. First priority is the foundations ie. create a self sustaining economy with surplus for growth and ensure this feeds into a support and infrastructure system to increase the competitiveness of that economy and provide safety nets for those who need them. Difficulties come in placing borders, succession and the like. I believe my endeavours should benefit my children, that doesn't fit with the left, I also believe that the good management and frugality one exhibits in life should not be punished by creating a state whereby we are penalized for being responsible e.g. old age care....

 

I would direct you to text 1,702 here - the whole of society is involved in the wealth creating process, not one distinct group. If you want to get to know slave conditions try working on a modern container ship for a while and you will quickly understand why no Germans, British or other Western Europeans are doing this job any more. The wealth is there - harvesting it is a thing which can take place under any system because work is the essential ingredient here not money.

 

And I do not deny that the whole of society is involved in creating wealth and I find it very strange that you seem to have singled out some essential professions and put them in a victim category. Wealth is not just money but like you as a Green would say its the environment which to me is defined as everything that surrounds us including people, animals, planet, government, systems, taxes you name it all we are in contact with. The difference of opinion we have is how to create the best environment for man and animals and in my concern trees to survive and thrive. I'm quite happy to see the end of the big container ship poor conditions and a leveling of the economic playing field by paying and treating them and the far eastern workers in so called communist and capitalist societies in a fair manner. This would however result in an effective restriction of trade and even further poverty in those countries as a result of their non-competitive position, I do't think there is a short term answer, the improvement in standards comes from increased efficiency and use of technology to provide the higher living standards but that's a process that's taken over 100 years and a couple of wars to evolve here. Can you point at where anybody has said one particular distinct group is responsible for creating wealth? We are a society where every individual contributes in some way be it positive, negative or neutral. The more the individuals are allowed to hold on to given sufficient taxation to provide infrastructure and safety net the better the society in my mind.

 

Agree with Yorkshire's earlier comment - for me the right wing of the Tories and the left wing of Labour are both faulty. There is an enormous overlap in the middle with fine detail on priorities distinguishing between them. Tories "on average" focus slightly more on baking the cake and Labour on ensuring the cake is more fairly handed out.

 

The whole of society is not really involved directly in creating wealth. That is a specific function that comes from transforming base elements into ever more complicated forms. Agriculture creates wealth and those directly working in the fields are therefore wealth creators -as are rich landowners who do nothing but provide either land or capital - both are required. In manufacturing of course every worker is involved in wealth creation - as are the factory owners who provide the means to manufacture. Services and the next tiers of economic activity perhaps do not fall directly into creating wealth. However bankers and others ensure that the economic systems are there to oil the wheels of wealth creation. The same goes for "service" type personnel like teachers, police and others mentioned. They do not directly create wealth but without them the conditions would not be there for successful wealth creation to continue. Everyone who works in gainful employment as well as stay at home mothers and others who do not earn a wage fulfill a necessary and important part in our society. I am not sure I have seen an argument on here saying otherwise.

 

Far more eloquent than myself and strictly correct if your starting point is wealth as it should be. My definition I guess was more geared towards quality of life which is not wealth per se. Interesting social experiment is to investigate where each type of emphasis (creation versus distribution) has leas societies at different stages in their development.

 

Yes - you had a broader focus. I was thinking rather narrowly about the need to build up the wealth that is needed then to spend on the things we as a society want to "buy" - including a nice environment, a fairer society etc etc. I just feel so many on the left just do not understand that unless wealth is created it cannot be spent. You cannot distribute Cologne's raw earth to feed, clothe and improve people's lives - that takes transformation of resources (perhaps a better phrase than wealth creation?)

 

" 2 points stand out here Leo. Does it never occur to people that there just might be enough growth already - that there might be enough wealth in the World already and that what is now required is to distribute it more evenly on the one hand and on the other to learn to live in a way which is compatible with the World's resources - and that means doing less of more or less everything. The other point is that growth can take place under any system and is dependent on work, organization of work, and not necessarily on investment or capital. It is work itself which is the wealth creator.

 

I think perhaps we need to go beyond the left-right argument to take this further.

I also agree we have the resources in the world for all of us. Just some people/groups/organisations/countries want to have more than others....

 

As I waited to board the ferry to come back, there were two vessels in the port. One is run by a French-Italian private company and the other by a French administrator and the French government. The later is bankrupt, but was kept going by heavy government subsidies. These have been deemed unlawful as they are against anti-competition rules as laid down by the EU. The French person I was chatting to told me that it was a total shambles the way that no decisions could be taken until various committees were consulted, which sometimes takes months and meanwhile the private company just gets on with the job, now with more than 60% of the travellers. The private company employs 1,400 people, while the latter 1,500. During talks between the unions and administrators it was proposed that of the 1,500 only 450 would be retained on contracts, with a similar number employed on seasonal work.
This to my mind shows that a well run company can provide decent jobs for many, and although I doubt that many of the Italians on board were paid a fortune, they do at least have work.

 

The left right argument is only a short hand for trying to understand where on the spectrum of politics a person stands. It is simplistic but well understood and I find it helps. Unless you start to get pedantic about definitions most of us "understand" the left to be where people favour social ownership and more redistribution of assets and the right is where the focus is on increasing production and wealth so that it creates the funds that people want to distribute in whatever way they choose. I would welcome someone trying to create another easier to understand and simplistic model. Otherwise we are just shooting points at random.

How anyone can say that there is enough wealth in the world for all of us already is beyond me. Do they not understand that when an economy slows down and starts to stagnate then its people are presented with the problems we have faced since 2008. With an ever growing world population and people who are not content to buy nothing then new "wealth" (not resources - they are there and broadly finite needing "extraction" to be used) is always needed.

It would be hypocrisy for people who love their computers, i-pads, i-pods and i-puds or what ever as well as all the other toys that are unnecessary but demanded to argue that nothing new needs creating. This country is far more complex than that - let alone the world. People who just believe that the world's problems would be solved by taking everything that currently exists and simply taking itfrom some to give to others are not living in the real world.

Change human nature and you can force "greenness" on all of us.

 

Recently I have come to favour a holistic view of society...... so left and right are parts of a greater whole.... and that is what I believe we should focus more on. Yes we need entrepreneurs and yes we need nurses and teachers....

In relation to resources on the planet we have all we need we just need to use if for the betterment of all of us.

Having spent some time working in Asia and seeing how people could be happy on virtually no income has reinforced this to me. I saw the same in Africa too on a family trip to where my wife was born.

In this western capitalist society everyone is chasing rainbows, wanting more, never happy and so on. IMO we have got it wrong.. focus on people and not materialism.

Yes maybe that means changing human nature Leo... but it fits with my nature... so it is not a completely weird concept.

( and yes I have as much issue with unionised movements as I do with market forces capitalists)

 

Keep singing Yorkie - I would buy that record every day of the year

 

Sad news about Charles Kennedy - Found dead at the age of 55.