Will things ever get easier for the common man?

TruckerT

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

The left certainly has a lot of work to do in order for their propaganda to approach the efficacy of the right.

The trouble is, Capitalism is instinctively right for any 'animal' population - every man for himself etc etc

But we humans lay claim to a higher ground called 'civilisation'

But the veneer of civilisation is extremely thin

An illustration of 'just how thin', is the conflict between the Christian conscience of the masters of St Pauls Cathedral, and their territorial instincts over their valuable Central London real estate, and their daily income of thousands of pounds sterling

TruckerT

Ilya_Ilyich

TruckerT wrote: »

The trouble is, Capitalism is instinctively right for any 'animal' population - every man for himself etc etc

But we humans lay claim to a higher ground called 'civilisation'

But the veneer of civilisation is extremely thin

An illustration of 'just how thin', is the conflict between the Christian conscience of the masters of St Pauls Cathedral, and their territorial instincts over their valuable Central London real estate, and their daily income of thousands of pounds sterling

TruckerT

My emphasis. This idea is entirely from capitalist propaganda; it is in the interest of capital to convince labour that the `natural' way of life is one which favours capital. There have been many, many societies throughout history which (with no outside intervention) operated on a non-capitalist basis. Capitalism is not something that exists by necessity.

Slavery has existed throughout most of human history, much longer than modern capitalism; should we then argue that slavery is natural and should have a place in society? I would argue no. Simply because something's easy to have does not make it ultimately the right thing to have.

e: It's pass! as !!!! but Christianity/religion in general really does play the role of opiate. Difficult to have sympathy for the church when it holds land that rightfully belongs to the people

heathcote123

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

A fairly accurate analysis I'd say. I'd argue though that communism was never obtained so it's unfair to denigrate it, and that socialism has never been allowed a chance to flourish -- consider e.g. the Soviet Union which we invaded as soon as it formed and which was forced to resort to militarism and expansionism in order to defend itself against the constant threat of further invasion, or Cuba which has been under economic and military assault from the USA since it 'turned socialist', or the numerous other US- or otherwise Western-sponsored attacks on nations that elected left-wing politicians. There's a tremendous amount of very effective pro-capitalist propaganda about, which is perfectly undertandable as a capitalist system places the media in the hands of capital. The left certainly has a lot of work to do in order for their propaganda to approach the efficacy of the right. It's tough to deal with though -- a significant proportion of the workers (as demonstrated on these forums) have successfully been convinced that the problem is their fellow workers/the poor in general being too well off. While the rich grow richer and richer over time.?

About 50% or our GDP is taken in tax by government to supply 'services'.

At what rate to you think we'd qualify as socialism? 60%, 75%?

Ilya_Ilyich

heathcote123 wrote: »

About 50% or our GDP is taken in tax by government to supply 'services'.

At what rate to you think we'd qualify as socialism? 60%, 75%?

Firstly I think framing taxes as 'taking wealth' is illegitimate when their purpose is ensuring wealth is expended where it's appropriate. Taxes aren't "stolen" from you; they reflect wealth that society believes could be used more effectively than on your caprices.

That said, I believe the idea of `taxes' would be meaningless in a socialist society. In such a society people would work to provide wealth for each other. It's IMHO completely irrelevant to imply that socialism is something you obtain through high taxes; it's more a mindset where people work together towards betterment of society.

TruckerT

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

There have been many, many societies throughout history which (with no outside intervention) operated on a non-capitalist basis. Capitalism is not something that exists by necessity

I think that most economists would call such societies 'pre'-capitalist rather than non-capitalist...

Those societies increasingly accept the narcotic of capitalism as an alternative to their unchanging daily grind

And, like any other drug, once you're hooked, you can never go back

TruckerT

Ilya_Ilyich

such a framing is incredibly pro-status quo though -- 'that was before now so they didn't realise how awesome now is'. you could frame any society in a similar way at any point in time. portraying capitalism as the 'utimate outcome' of economic progression and the idea that only a tiny proportion of society can have a good life is exactly what the capitalist class wants.

Pobby

I really do hate all this baby boomers rubbish. seems to me that some think that all people of a certain age are rolling in it. Well they ain`t. Some, like myself, smashed by the last recession, well actually the aftermath. Folk loosing their jobs in their 50`s. Try finding another. Not every baby boomer owns property. Folk splitting up in later life. Folk that worked, like my wife and I, paid into private pensions only to find they are worth so much less than anticipated. The list is endless.

Oh my, they way some here talk is that us, of a certain age, got together at a secret meeting and said that we all hate our kids and let`s screw them up.

I for one hated HPI. I have plenty of young `uns in my family screwed by it. We want to move for retirement to a similar house in a more expensive area. A few years back it would have been the difference of a few grand.

Liked the comments about young families with shopping trolleys with the bear essentials. Most I see are full of nasty rubbish. High fat, pre cooked rubbish. We are careful with the pennies since losing my job but do we eat well. We cook! Being a figures person I calculate our wastage is between 3 to 5%. That is far to high yet I here the average is 25%.

Got given some cooking apples. Man did I make an apple sauce that was far from the bland old rubbish you buy. We use a lot of spices. Not tiddly widdly little bottles at about a quid each from the super market but huge amounts far cheaper from Asian shops.

I love a drink but can`t afford beer so have taken a like to cider, lower taxes.

I also know that some younger folk want it all. Maybe not their fault but I see it in my near family. Want a house but also want 3 holidays a year and a flash car.

One of my God children, also a decent bloke, bought with his very nice g/f a £200k rabbit hutch. His lass has come in to some money and they now have given me a great niece. Yet there is the flash motor, shortly to have the flash wedding. Just hope their dreams are not shattered.

I really think it is hard on youngsters. Their heads full of media rubbish. Pumped up by dreadful TV shows, the celebration of half witted " celebs ". Imo it just sends out a very bad message.

I do many hours of unpaid on line work a week supporting a charity who helps gamblers. The young kids who come in with debts you would not believe. Yet we have a dreadful lack of regulations in this field. Kids trying to live the dream funded mainly by credit cards.

To generalise is not helpful.

A baby boomer.

Generali

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

One of the major issues is inequality. Quality of life is probably improving over time in Britain, yes. However what's coming with it is a rapid increase in inequality; as our national wealth increases more and more of it goes to the wealthy. If we use maximum consumption as a proxy for quality of life then apportioning more wealth to the wealthy (who have a lower marginal propensity to consume) means we're essentially getting less 'bang for our buck' and increasing overall quality of life more slowly than we could be.

Obviously there are multiple sides on the issue. For example there are plenty who would essentially take the stance that as long as quality of life is generally improving at some rate then it doesn't matter that it could be improving much faster - who cares if CEO compensation is up 50% year-on-year or the wealthy avoid billions in taxes, when (as Graham points out) everyone and has brother has an iPhone? Or to continue the Apple theme, who cares if they're sit on billions in cash while their workers are paid pennies for working in sweatshop conditions so bad they have to be locked in to prevent suicides - at least they have jobs!

There's also the stance that it's necessary for this kind of wealth transfer to take place in order for the rich (who are the truly productive) to create employment and wealth in the first place, and if we tried to reduce their share of the wealth we'd end up worse overall. The figures don't seem to back this up (US data as I'm too lazy to find similar for the UK). Further this relies somewhat on high social mobility - if the point of low taxation on the rich is that they're smart and hard-working and create wealth, then our system should make it easy for the productive and hard-working to become rich. But the UK has some of the worst social mobility around - if you're rich it's probably because of the situation you were born into. Why is it necessary then to avoid taxation on people simply because they were born wealthy? This also partly addresses the 'well just work harder/buy some shares/be less lazy' argument - it's becoming more and more difficult to succeed in this way; barriers to entry are increasing and it's in the interest of the wealthy to keep up the idea that it's the fault of the masses that they're benefiting less than they could be, rather than of the rich who're actually accumulating the wealth.

e: I think the age point is an interesting one too - aside from the documented increase in (small-c) conservatism as people age, we're in a situation where those who grew in an age of greater equality and lower barriers to entry have taken advantage of it to accumulate wealth for themselves and are now acting to prevent the youth of today from having the same opportunities.

The flaw in your argument is that in the UK, the rich don't pay low taxes. The top 50% of earners pay net pretty much all the tax in the UK (that is the bottom 50% of earners consume more in public services and welfare than they pay in tax).

For a couple with children, including tax credits, the bottom 10% of earners pay out -32.9% in income tax whereas the top 10% of earners pay 20.1% in tax (link to HMRC). Even average earners with kids pay out only 8.4% in income tax after you take their tax credits into account.

The problem with soaking the rich is that there really aren't that many of them. Fewer than 10% of wage earners pay 40% tax and only about 1% pay 50%. (link & link).

My opinion as to why the UK has poor social mobility is 2 fold. Firstly British people are stupid enough to believe that social class matters in some way. Snobbery both 'upwards' and 'downwards' is rife. That is your fault and the fault of everyone else that falls for that guff. The second is it is almost impossible for a poor person to get an elite education in the UK. The brightest of the poor (ie the ones that can benefit) should be given an elite and expensive education IMO, at the Etons and Harrows of the world. Perhaps those schools can be pushed into subsidising this in return for keeping their charitable status.

A._Badger

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

I've never studied Marx so I doubt what I post is textbook. I do believe it's intellectually dishonest to imply that Marxism necessarily leads to prison camps and mass exerminations. The GULAG system was unfortunate but as a nation perpetually under siege it becomes more understandable. What is your stance on year zero then -- that a short-term bloody revolution has no place in the overthrow of a bloody oppressive regime?

I do not believe, having read your comments, that you are anything but steeped in Marxism.

Quite how you could consider it 'intellectually dishonest' to state (I did not imply it, I drew a direct link) that Marxism has led to state terrorism is amusing. It would be hard to find an instance when it has not.

My 'stance' on year zero is simple. Marxism attracts psychotic despots (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) with simplistic, messianic 'solutions' because it demands state control. State control necessitates authoritarianism.

Your defence of the gulags as 'unfortunate' and your attempt to plea-bargain Pol Pot's atrocities is deeply troubling. I hope other readers have taken note of it. Had you done the same of Hitler, you might well have been banned.

Ilya_Ilyich

A._Badger wrote: »

I do not believe, having read your comments, that you are anything but steeped in Marxism.

Quite how you could consider it 'intellectually dishonest' to state (I did not imply it, I drew a direct link) that Marxism has led to state terrorism is amusing. It would be hard to find an instance when it has not.

My 'stance' on year zero is simple. Marxism attracts psychotic despots (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) with simplistic, messianic 'solutions' because it demands state control. State control necessitates authoritarianism.

Your defence of the gulags as 'unfortunate' and your attempt to plea-bargain Pol Pot's atrocities is deeply troubling. I hope other readers have taken note of it. Had you done the same of Hitler, you might well have been banned.

Again I want to make clear that I've never studied Marx and my views don't reflect his. I think apportioning my arguments to him is doing his arguments a disservice; are you a student of Marx?