Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mr Barlow

Are Low-Paid, Outraged Workers Ready To Fight Back?

Recommended Posts

There is growing evidence, then, that finance, not technology, is primarily driving inequality. That means it is not inevitable, but the product of laws and institutions, not silicon chips.

No mention of the bailouts, the QE, the fraud, the lies, the lack of representation and the corruption etc etc etc ...................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article

The solution is easy to envisage – but distasteful to mainstream politics. It means generous welfare benefits, strong unions with institutional bargaining arrangements and less globalisation: less offshoring, less outsourcing, less temporary work.

No,

It needs an end to subsidy and more, fair competition

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economics editor of Channel 4 news has a degree in Music and Politics.

This is a really important issue, but the approach he's taken is complete nonsense based on zero evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article

No,

It needs an end to subsidy and more, fair competition

Unfortunately with the muppets on the Left being what they are, that'll be the last thing that'll happen if the proles Rise Up.

When I see "anarchists" protesting against cuts, I know they havn't got a fugging clue, not even about the word they describe themselves as. No saviours to be found here, only something even worse than David Cameron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see "anarchists" protesting against cuts, I know they havn't got a fugging clue,

The country's been on the drug so long that Cold Turkey won't be pretty - and that's why the Government's dispensing

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention of the bailouts, the QE, the fraud, the lies, the lack of representation and the corruption etc etc etc ...................

enclosures act, corn laws...twas ever thus.

when it gets really out of whack the elite get hunted down and exterminated.

I would say things are almost at marie-antoinette style out-of -whack...but not quite.

..but not that far away either.

would not be prudent for illustrious leaders to tighten the elastic band too much further

the problem with inibriating the population into a state of docility so you can @rse rape them and steal their stuff, is you need to keep them doped up.

1) for some the dosage is no longer sufficient and they are sobering up

2)if opiate of the people cut in supply you get marauding people with withdrawal symptoms.

both gangs are angry.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It needs an end to subsidy and more, fair competition

'Fair competition' is quite a funny notion- like non stick glue- it seems at first glance to mean something but is in fact nonsense. What I think you really mean is that the inherent unfairness of things should be left to play out with minimal state interference- so- for example- a kid born to a rich parent should be able to reap the full benefit of this advantage without some mealy mouthed socialist trying to tax it away from him.

There is no such thing as fair competition in a universe where unfairness is encoded into the genes of every living thing- is it fair that some are born smart and others born dumb- obviously not. And will any amount of 'fair competition' erase the inherent advantage those born smart have over those born dumb- no.

The idea that competition will erode inequality is based on the untenable idea that we are either all born equal or can-by sheer effort- render ourselves equal- which is nonsense. In reality the advantaged gain ground over the disadvantaged and this gain then compounds their advantage leading to further gains and a further erosion of the position of the disadvantaged.

Darwin called this process natural selection, we call it free market capitalism- but whatever you choose to call it you cannot call it fair, you can only call it efficient.

The question then is this- do we really want a system that is efficient at accelerating the gap between the have's and the have not's?

Edited by wonderpup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on if you are a have or have not? :huh:

The Darwin analogy is good, but free market capitalism doesn't have death. If the dinosaurs could have packaged up their ferocity and gifted it to their offspring, would mammals ever have taken over the earth? I doubt it.

More like the economy is a forest, full of old, dead, rotten and diseased trees. After spending the last 30 years shoring up the dead wood, we are due the mother of all fires!

The higher they stack it, the more ferocious the fire. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free market capitalism has plenty of death. There would have been a lot of death in 2007/8. A lot of rich people would have been turned into poor people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Fair competition' is quite a funny notion- like non stick glue- it seems at first glance to mean something but is in fact nonsense. What I think you really mean is that the inherent unfairness of things should be left to play out with minimal state interference- so- for example- a kid born to a rich parent should be able to reap the full benefit of this advantage without some mealy mouthed socialist trying to tax it away from him.

There is no such thing as fair competition in a universe where unfairness is encoded into the genes of every living thing- is it fair that some are born smart and others born dumb- obviously not. And will any amount of 'fair competition' erase the inherent advantage those born smart have over those born dumb- no.

The idea that competition will erode inequality is based on the untenable idea that we are either all born equal or can-by sheer effort- render ourselves equal- which is nonsense. In reality the advantaged gain ground over the disadvantaged and this gain then compounds their advantage leading to further gains and a further erosion of the position of the disadvantaged.

Darwin called this process natural selection, we call it free market capitalism- but whatever you choose to call it you cannot call it fair, you can only call it efficient.

The question then is this- do we really want a system that is efficient at accelerating the gap between the have's and the have not's?

Natural selection minimises genetic load, efficiently, and only under diversifying selection will you end up with a bimodal distribution, which I think we have created the conditions for.

So, remove the interference and let's see what happens.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.