Fun and games with ballot papers

[Dave2002]

Thanks

and what is the attitude of those who earn less towards those who earn more ?

It's interesting that my question is taken by some as somehow a 'defence' of extreme wealth inequality which it isn't.

Difficult to say. Overall most people in Sweden are closer to the average pay levels than in the UK, and also the per capita income there is higher. That is as declared/measured - though it is possible that some people manage to hide their wealth as mentioned in another post to this thread.
There are tensions in Swedish society, and things may have got worse since we lived there. I didn't detect too much hostility to better paid people by those who were less well off. As in the UK there are probably regional differences, though they may be much less than in the UK.

[LezLee]

I feel so lucky to live in Scotland.

[MrGongGong]

Difficult to say. Overall most people in Sweden are closer to the average pay levels than in the UK, and also the per capita income there is higher. That is as declared/measured - though it is possible that some people manage to hide their wealth as mentioned in another post to this thread.
There are tensions in Swedish society, and things may have got worse since we lived there. I didn't detect too much hostility to better paid people by those who were less well off. As in the UK there are probably regional differences, though they may be much less than in the UK.

Thanks
Always good to hear from people who actually DO know about things.

[Dave2002]

I feel so lucky to live in Scotland.

How does that help?

[LMcD]

How does that help?

In any number of ways, I would think. I would say that most Scots, Welsh and Irish have a greater sense of national identity than do many English, the more patriotic of whom are just as likely to describe themselves as British anyway. The Scots also benefit from having a majority government headed by a leader who may not be adored by all of her fellow citizens but is generally held in higher esteem most if not all leading English or Welsh politicians are by theirs. And the high proportion of marginal Westminster seats means that In the forthcoming general election, a much higher proportion of Scots will have the chance to cast a meaningful vote.

[Dave2002]

In any number of ways, I would think. I would say that most Scots, Welsh and Irish have a greater sense of national identity than do many English, the more patriotic of whom are just as likely to describe themselves as British anyway. The Scots also benefit from having a majority government headed by a leader who may not be adored by all of her fellow citizens but is generally held in higher esteem most if not all leading English or Welsh politicians are by theirs. And the high proportion of marginal Westminster seats means that In the forthcoming general election, a much higher proportion of Scots will have the chance to cast a meaningful vote.

The Scottish governent looks like a minority government to me - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

[Serial_Apologist]

Wealth and earnings are obviously different things. A lot of people own their own house and certainly in London that can be an asset that is worth a lot on paper. But unless you borrow against it, or let a room out (assuming you’d want to) it is not income producing unless and until you sell it. Granted, the rise in house prices in London compared to the rest of the country has led to the perception that this wealth is unearned, but what of those who have saved to pay off their mortgages? Who borrowed many years ago, and spent carefully meantime, so as to own an asset in later life? Or who simply can’t or won’t move, for whatever reason. Why should their frugality be penalised by, as appears to be envisaged, tax charges on sale of that asset? Or worse still a ‘windfall’ tax in the form of an annual charge. All that will happen is that the banks which run foreign domiciled trusts hitherto the preserve of the super rich will come up with a product for the mid market which enables them to avoid paying it. In effect, capital flight from the U.K. and money taken out of the economy. Nobody benefits from that.

It is periodic scarcity endemic to how capitalism and capitalist markets work that is the cause of the price of housing as one example. Basically the system is anarchic; it overproduces causing a glut that then declines in market value - the *real* value embedded in the number of hours put into making the product from raw materials to finished product (a house) which is masked by the mount of buying power around, and, when spent, the unequal power over the market place and hence production needs that exists due to the class structure endowing some with more power than others. It's as simple as that at the end of the day. Take away the privileges, elect bosses and others into top positions on pain of recall, with a pay gap based on length of time to qualify (making skill and expertise the criterion determining the pay gap), restore value to the number of hours collectively producing a commodity and make that its price (while ensuring the product is environmentally sustainable and made to last rather than be obsolescent according to some smartarse advertiser). Real material non-exclusive involvement is what makes for meaningful lives as opposed to all-against-all in some crazy battle to comply with some bighead's idea of intelligence or attractiveness. At least Jeremy's idea of worker involvement over workplace decision-making is a first step in the right direction - a stake in the end product and how much of it there has to be; the next step is breaking down "commercial secrecy" which, in a system in which overproduction and its consequences in redundancy undermines even bosses' and their political representatives' calls for "loyalty", carries no credibility, or at best upholds provisionality over the long term, encouraging envy between would-be equals. Once the more more more of the acquisitive society has its raison d'etre removed in the form of indispensable collateral there will be space for creative self-development and more can be done at the local level within what is physically, ecologically and psychologically manageable, downgrading expectations raised then dashed in a perpetual war to put the blame and onus on ordinary people for the problems endemic to capitalism over which they have little power to decide other than as isolated egos in competition to be best as determined by perverse values, or once every 5 years marking a ballot paper. Let the popularisation of involvement in life proceed!

[MrGongGong]

It is periodic scarcity endemic to how capitalism and capitalist markets work that is the cause of the price of housing as one example. Basically the system is anarchic; it overproduces causing a glut that then declines in market value - the *real* value embedded in the number of hours put into making the product from raw materials to finished product (a house) which is masked by the mount of buying power around, and, when spent, the unequal power over the market place and hence production needs that exists due to the class structure endowing some with more power than others. It's as simple as that at the end of the day.

I'm not an expert on Marxist (or any other .....) theory
BUT do you think that the *real* value of things is always to do with the amount of time put into making?

Last time I wrote an orchestral piece I spent a long day making a couple of bars (about 18 hours or so) then threw them away the next day. Which might mean that either 1. I'm a bit sh*t at working fast on orchestral music OR 2. I was grossly underpaid ? or maybe 3 ?

There was a fascinating talk on R4 a while ago (and I can't quite remember the exact details ) with a retired professor who was talking about the time when academic work began to be measured by the hour and the unintended consequences of this.
IMV the supposed "radical" ideas of many on the "Left" do little to challenge the way that people really think about how things are made, how people are paid etc

More rules could simply mean that those with the resources to will employ clever people to find ways around those rules.

[muzzer]

IMV the supposed "radical" ideas of many on the "Left" do little to challenge the way that people really think about how things are made, how people are paid etc

More rules could simply mean that those with the resources to will employ clever people to find ways around those rules.

I agree with this and also believe that whoever gets into or back into power and however large their money tree, they will be overtaken by international events beyond their control. At which point, telling people what they can or cannot do with their worldly goods will be meaningless.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not an expert on Marxist (or any other .....) theory
BUT do you think that the *real* value of things is always to do with the amount of time put into making?

Well the value that has historically become tied to money value is thought to have originally been determined by the amount of time agreed between two producers to be necessary in bartering what to exchange between them and how much of it. In this way the living needs were met both ways and, obviously, by extension between all the different producers within that community. At some stage in the unfolding some societies devised coineage as more practicable than exchanging goods. The coming of the merchant capitalist meant money, initially invested with value according to the hours of labour put in, became his own source of the wealth, allowing "him" to amass more than those involved as artisans in making product. Music, whose existence, given its social and religious place, had survived outwith questions of worth in money terms, being supported by community (fireside sing-and-dancealongs, seasonal celebrations), church and aristocracy, thereafter acquired commodity status, but this status was according to however much people were prepared to pay for it, whether in the shape of performances or musical scores. Those with the commissioning power could have the say over what the music should be and what it was for, thus laying down the principles of relationship that continue to this day. The value accorded music was interlinked, firstly, with advances in the technology of its means of production, rather than in terms of the amount of "material" it contained, or the time taken in its composition and performance; secondly with the buying (and commissioning) power of the classes supporting it. While this is not to overlook the values encrypted into the manufactured instruments themselves as use values to the performer, it probably helps account for the relatively lowly status accorded music in capitalist culture and the tendency to water down originality into easily consumable repeatable chunks, compared to achievements in science and inventions leading to greater productivity and profitability, the prime virtues upheld in the capitalist scheme of things.

Last time I wrote an orchestral piece I spent a long day making a couple of bars (about 18 hours or so) then threw them away the next day. Which might mean that either 1. I'm a bit sh*t at working fast on orchestral music OR 2. I was grossly underpaid ? or maybe 3 ?

What purpose a piace of music has for making money for somebody in the end is the all-important shaping issue, rather than the time and effort put into it.

There was a fascinating talk on R4 a while ago (and I can't quite remember the exact details ) with a retired professor who was talking about the time when academic work began to be measured by the hour and the unintended consequences of this.
IMV the supposed "radical" ideas of many on the "Left" do little to challenge the way that people really think about how things are made, how people are paid etc

More rules could simply mean that those with the resources to will employ clever people to find ways around those rules.

Rules are necessary if people aren't to be ripped off, as happens at present and for ever since most people can remember. In my time "the Left" as I understand it has always championed freedom of expression because (a) only it fosters the conditions encouraging to critical thought and (b) it operates outside the strictures of market-determining desiderata, thus anticipating the circumstances in which one would hope for it to be operating, flourishing and helping bring about in a better world.

[LMcD]

The Scottish governent looks like a minority government to me - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

I stand (well, sit ) corrected! Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon gives the impression that she's head of a majority government.

[MrGongGong]

Very interesting S_A

Thanks

(long ramble deleted ... will return after todays free experimental gig in Gainsborough now you can see why me voting is a total waste of time )

[Serial_Apologist]

Very interesting S_A

Thanks

(long ramble deleted ... will return after todays free experimental gig in Gainsborough now you can see why me voting is a total waste of time )

[Dave2002]

I stand (well, sit ) corrected! Perhaps Nicola Sturgeon gives the impression that she's head of a majority government.

Well actually she didn't. She has mentioned repeatedly that she has managed a minority administration for four years.

Her demeanour may suggest otherwise, but her words fit with what I have just written.

[Anastasius]

....
The continual trashing of Corbyn in our media is a national disgrace. ...

Came to this late. No, it isn't. He's an anti-semite. Supports terrorists. Don't get me wrong...I am not a fan of Johnson either and will not be voting Conservative this time. Either LibDem or Green. But the thought of Corbynge being PM is beyond despair. Looking at their manifesto...not so much a Magic Money Tree but a Magic Money Forest. I've promised them down our local pub that if Corbynge becomes PM, I'll come to the pub wearing a black arm band and nothing else. For he will have had the shirt off my back, he might as damn well have the rest.

And the amount of fence-sitting Corbynge does...I'm surprised he's not got splinters in his backside.

Corbynge is beneath contempt. As is Johnson.