shipbuilder

True, as you say, productivity may not have risen at the same rate and other countries may have industrialised first, which would have significantly altered our own history, but not general human 'progress', in my opinion. I wasn't implying that you said anything - just making the point that it's easy to look back now and point out obvious material differences, but that doesn't tell the whole story, hence my point 'it looks like a simple choice in retrospect'. I would rather be a farmer now than King in 1750, but that's science and progress. But you are claiming that the industrial revolution was good due to our better living standards today, which is fair enough, but that implies that the enclosures were a 'necessary evil'. Whether you meant to say this or not, it's how your post came across. Whether you were making it or not, It's an argument that's made regularly by all sorts of people, for all sorts of things - the idea that force is required to bring an unenlightened people along to a better way of life and without it we would all still be scraping in the dirt. We can see it used by both the left and right to justify authoritarianism, imperialism and corporatism.

It would take a brave person to claim that such progress would not have happened without the enclosure acts. If 'subsistence farming' was so grim and the alternative so attractive in comparison, then the acts would not have been necessary, surely? It looks like a simple choice in retrospect, but... The problem I have with this point of view is the imperialistic ring of 'people don't know what's good for them and need to be told' about it.

No, you haven't told me what this 'reality' is. Why are people obliged to work for a dollar a day? Why do they not have any alternative? How can they starve?

Yet the enclosure acts exist - they had to be brought into law and enforced.

The type of welfare and tax system we have certainly is. That's why no parties are keen on, say, LVT and CI.

You've avoided the question. Why do the consequences for saying no exist? Why would someone starve if they say no?

So there are consequences to saying no and restrictions on freedom, as you say. What do you believe is the root cause of these restrictions?

There's probably more worthy things to feel sick about.

As opposed to what? Does a capitalist believe that if you get made redundant in a world economic downturn that it's because you didn't work hard enough?

We don't have global and unrestricted free trade, but you're right - the current form of globalisation - where multi-national corporations more powerful than individual countries effectively bribe governments to pimp their citizens for the lowest possible wage, while keeping the assets that make up their own wealth inflated - is only one way of doing things. It is also nothing like what Adam Smith envisioned in 'Wealth of Nations'. It's just good old corporatocracy.

You're absolutely right, unfortunately due to a lot of propaganda by a lot of vested interests, they are more likely to be demanding that wages rise and the government help with 'affordability' of housing, rather than demanding that property prices be allowed to fall - mostly because rentierism and the golden property cash machine is still seen as the way to riches.

By definition it's not really free trade if asset prices are being held up. The asset prices are the real problem, it's why we're all here. Protecting asset prices works for those whose wealth is derived from assets - the problem is that most homeowners believe that they are part of this group and most prospective homeowners want to join them. I think this thread comes down to a simple question - to redress current imbalances, is it better that wages go up or that the cost of living (mainly property prices) comes down?

Indeed, I'm employed in a pretty regular 9-5 type structure so don't necessarily have the freedom of time, but my job and working environment make up for it. I took a 50%+ pay cut from my previous 'career' and couldn't be happier. In that sense I'm probably the most 'successful' (and least paid) person I know.

Not sure about that, I get the impression that many people knowingly turn to materialism as a substitute for not having a deeper sense of satisfaction or freedom in their lives. Certainly this is the case among some of my friends and many folks I used to work with.

I'll bet most folks would swap every one of those things, in a second, for a job they enjoy or the freedom to do what they want, when they want.

My general point was that no-one is safe. People are desperate to believe that the nature and purpose of power have changed over millennia, that we can give small groups of people huge power over us and they will act in our interests or that given just the right type of government, they can be made to act in our interests....

"I think it's absolutely disgusting that the state can confiscate people's money - I'll be voting UKIP next time" I think this sums up the general sentiment I see on HPC over the past while, and why things will continue to get worse. Who came up with the saying that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

There's plenty of entrepreneurs on TV - Dragon's Den, The Apprentice etc. The only problem is they come across as complete w*nkers. It's only natural that kids are influenced by what they see on TV as we've let it become our primary source of information. The larger problem, I think, is more that we have let TV have such influence and that we celebrate only a certain type of success that's purely monetary. It's no different in America. I think too much emphasis can be put on 'entrepreneurs' - to me they are just one part of the equation - people with the ability and drive to make an idea happen. But again they are more the monetary side of things. There are no shortage of people wanting to make money. See rentierism. We need people to come up with the ideas in the first place - the inventors and nerds - that's what the Uk was always good at and that's what we're really lacking, I think. I think more generally we are losing the joy of immersing ourselves in a discipline, craft or skill and concentrating instead on the end result.

I got a Desmond, well below my 'potential' apparently - thoroughly enjoyed myself at university, walked straight into a good graduate position afterwards (out of a choice of two offered), as did all my peers, some with 3rds and less. In 1997 - that's the economic cycle for you. Easy to judge people on the surface, but if anything knowledge gained on this site should tell you that there are greater forces at work than individual effort.

Would you reform the planning system or get rid of it?

Until the planet is genuinely overpopulated, in theory it will always 'pay' enough - natural materials are free, only labour is required to transform them into food and shelter. The problem at a most basic level is restriction of access to nature i.e. land. Without addressing this in some way, labour will always be at a disadvantage.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, however in a situation where planning restrictions disappeared (along with the state, my preference to be honest), there would still be a dialogue regarding what and where is best to build. While we can speculate where Simon Jenkins' personal priorities lie, personally I would argue that considering the natural environment to be a optional luxury (which is often the mirror to NIMBY arguments) is a huge mistake. Edit to add - these days I often seem to spend pages of a thread arguing that we'd be better off without the state and being told that such a view is utopian and pointless. Unfortunately when I suggest improvements within the current system or partially agree with an opinion expressed by someone who benefits from the system, I guess I'm then going to be told that I'm not going far enough.

crisis may be triggered.....systemic threat......risk to the stability of the financial system......risk to the UK financial system.......heightened fragility.......we must do what it takes..... threat to our way of life.......if you''re not with us you're against us......

Have you boycotted their hundreds of free countryside sites as well?

Why wouldn't you wonder why they can't afford food and shelter, or why they can't produce their own?