Hunger $ Billionaires

[amateur51]

here you are ams 1

and 2

and 3

How chilling that there's so much, Calum - many thanks

[amateur51]

That's what makes you the nice fella you are, Ams. If only it were so. In reality they're only looking after their class interests - interests opposed to other class interests inbuilt into the very nature of capitalism. If they didn't do so, they'd go under - initially as competitors in the big game in which they are all fighting for a bit of the global market that sometimes expands (like, during periodic booms, or when the likes of Russia or China come "on-line"), but mostly (these days) contracts by virtue of its unsustainable capacity to produce, let alone maintain growth.

The socio-/psychopathological characteristics of privilege or ambition to succeed at the expense of all others will either bring up new geniuses of the Keynes type to come and rescue their system and its operations, or we will continue along the softening up process of eroding civil and democratic rights by stealth and targetted scapegoating, until those of working age who make them their wealth, and are therefore in a position to challenge power as exercised and supported in the boardrooms, police, militaries, mass media and churches of whatever religion, come up with a replacement for alternatives proven by history to be wanting.

Cheers S_A

Nice but doomed, eh?

[Serial_Apologist]

Cheers S_A

Nice but doomed, eh?

No; in the teeth of evidence to the contrary people, "ordinary" people, are I continue to believe intelligent enough when faced with a common enemy to devise alternatives to the ways society is currently organised and run.

Think of all the wastage caused by the system we live under - material wastage in terms of throwaway products designed not to last, underutilised human abilities because the profit motive under competition has no use for them leading to despair and crime, unnecessary duplication of decisionmaking functions as represented by highly paid executive boardrooms planning almost identical products in quantities only calculable on assumptions reached by persuading fictitious numbers of consumers to buy these same products they never knew they needed, the squandering of productive wealth on advertising which says little or nothing about the product...

Now consider the idea of democratic control over all that same machinery that could be put to meeting basic needs, in the first place; joint get-togethers, involving people educated from early age, motivated to feel part of a meaningful process with the aim of improving life for all right from the start; and then involving elected community leaders, scientists, technicians and workplace representatives to decide, formulate prototypes, trial, obtain feedback, then determine quantities, social costs, put into effect and track.

Lucas Aerospace Alternative Plan in the 1970s was one prototype model devised on such a basis when closure and redundancy loomed - socially needed products which, on the basis of a similar approach to market research, would have sold on the capitalist market, (they already had interested parties). What in that instance failed was that the trade union conduit to government - supposedly Broad Left-led - chose to view the plans as "above their pay grade" - "Nah, we look after jobs and conditions, mate" - and notwithstanding Benn cogently putting the argument in Cabinet, the Wilson/Callaghan government in hoc to maintaining the economic and political status quo, said no.

A sympathetic government could have worked wonders!

[teamsaint]

Shortages are usually artificial and created by greed.

Is there enough of these in the world?

Food. yes. We can easily feed a population far bigger than the one we have now.
water. yes Look at a map.
Energy . Yes (the universe is comprised of energy.)
Land. (yes, ref UK building land).

Do we have too much of the following:
Guns . Yes
"disposable" goods. Yes
Bankers . yes
Corrupt regimes. Yes.
Irresponsible elites who stole or inherited their money. Yes.

Classic example... we are being told that the UK has water scarcity. No, really.

[ahinton]

Are you about to make the case for the teaching of a community-inspired moral sense related to finances and wealth-generation, ahinton?

At the risk of falling foul of the old cliché that it's rude to asnwer a question with another question (and I do not wish to be or even appear rude here), what makes you ask? Anyway, given that I've never taught and that the chances of any teaching making much material impact on the situation concerned, the answer would almost certainly have to be no - and I couldn't finance any such scheme either!...

[handsomefortune]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/britons-masters-class-denial-what-means

[Resurrection Man]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ial-what-means

What a junk article that was. So no-one takes any responsibility for their own actions ?

[handsomefortune]

like our leaders take any responsibility for theirs? so no, not governments ................and likewise not citizens.

as someone has posted in the comments section: Why would I want to extend my life expectancy when I can't afford a pension?

which seems a perfectly logical response in the circumstances.... from younger people at least.

so 'responsibility for self' might actually mean something quite different to the older & richer merely wagging their fingers at the have nots, telling them to 'be responsible'.....as though there is a choice.

it always astonishes me how upset the 'haves' get about this grim prospect, i suppose it dawns on them that they are going to have to up stumps, move to an expensive gated community after all, as their own health and safety is a top priority. no one to wag fingers at either, just the same old same old on the leveled playing field that possibly once belonged to a school.

what a mess! though what tanya gold's written shouldn't be dismissed as 'junk', it's just makes very discomforting reading..... particularly for those with the personal habits of the ostrich species.

anyway - back to the subject of the water scarcity jape! not bad for a small island completely surrounded by water, and a climate noted for rainfall .... but 'the experts' are nevertheless going to give it a trial, and see how much dosh they can muster...... 'who dares wins' and all that (in the absence of a james bond emoticon)

[Serial_Apologist]

(in the absence of a james bond emoticon)

???

How's about

You're looking lovely, Pussy Galore,

[handsomefortune]

tbh though, 'you're looking lovely pussy galore' wasn't actually the first bondism that sprang to mind serial apologist! perhaps the person with the attitude of 'who dares wins' ... he(/she)? may say this to the receptionist at severn trent hq? ie en route to meeting with the ceo, to set up 'the great water scarcity jape'?

doubtless, they'll all be 'in it together' - you can't have a proper scarcity scare, rip everyone off, if any water companies fails to comply with the jape ....as i understand it.

even a pm has to join in, and act out, ie pretend 'there's a terrible problem', which usually isn't difficult, because essentially there is a terrible problem: theft! presumably, it's just a case of a pm re phrasing the 'urgency' to appear to be linked to a water shortage..... rather than a pm's fear of being caught making lucrative deals with cunning, greedy, sociopaths with 'audacious financial schemes' which directly affect the public?

but i definitely share team saint's concern, as water's a prime target obviously. (conveniently )? we'd all be dead within a few weeks without water, which certainly puts petrol shortages into sharp perspective. incidentally, afaik we haven't heard from the lorry drivers of late..... but then perhaps a 'news' distraction isn't required currently. iirc last time there was a national petrol scare, simultaneously, the pm's wife was being 'hired out' to businessmen for £200.000, as captured on film and leaked to the mainstream press. in contrast, it must have been such a relief to be able to bang on about queues at suburban supermarket petrol stations instead, in otherwise dubious personal and political circumstances! but then francis maude went right over the top with his particular gas 'embellishments', and disgraced the government anyway.....just when they were trying their best to look like 'nornal people' too instead, they ended up looking like a bunch of degenerates let loose in a sweet shop .....again! (darn it, i need a bunch of 'hollow laughter' emoticons now....you'll just have to 'make do and mend' (an expression popularised in the austerity following ww2 apparently) with 'our unelected political leader' santa .... )

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

ho hum

Barclays Bank Gangster Soul .....

[amateur51]

ho hum

Barclays Bank Gangster Soul .....

Oh dear Calum, the red mist just descended

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

and another canard laid low

In fact the evidence that tax rates influence economic growth in any way is equivocal at best. A myriad of other factors are involved. Simply reducing tax rates, and primarily for the wealthy, may hinder -- rather than enhance our economic recovery.
Table 1: Comparison of mean marginal tax rates and mean real GDP growth rate [USA]


Steven St

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven...#ixzz25P3vP5Vj

[Serial_Apologist]

and another canard laid low

In fact the evidence that tax rates influence economic growth in any way is equivocal at best. A myriad of other factors are involved. Simply reducing tax rates, and primarily for the wealthy, may hinder -- rather than enhance our economic recovery.
Table 1: Comparison of mean marginal tax rates and mean real GDP growth rate [USA]


Steven St

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven...#ixzz25P3vP5Vj

Yes but the wealthy perspective of the class war will argue against that that was a time when everybody paid high taxes and so you had no choice but to go along with them; but now that we have deregulation we can go anywhere we want, and if you don't want us here we'll go and create some wealth somewhere else, okaaaaaaaaaay?

(Not having looked at any statistics, I wonder if that was actually the case?)

[ahinton]

Yes but the wealthy perspective of the class war will argue against that that was a time when everybody paid high taxes and so you had no choice but to go along with them; but now that we have deregulation we can go anywhere we want, and if you don't want us here we'll go and create some wealth somewhere else, okaaaaaaaaaay?

(Not having looked at any statistics, I wonder if that was actually the case?)

One problem inevitably associated with any attempt to link national growth with national tax rates is the question of the source of taxable funds - i.e. how much is earned income and how much invested income (and how much of the latter derives from capital amassed through work and how much not) and how much is wealth derived from employment or business and how much is inherited? That's only a very basic and simplistic way of putting it, to be sure, but the cap fits. I don't see that any additional deregulation today has made any material difference to this situation because the wealthy always had the option to go elsewhere or be taxed elsewhere.

Another problem with taxing the "wealthy" is that which would arise in the cases of those only just above the selected threshold. Were something along the lines of a "mansion tax" to be imposed upon properties whose value exceeds £2m, those valued at only just over that figure will likely drop in value to below that figure purely as a direct consequence of the introduction of that tax; this will cause no end of headaches and additional unproductive work at HMRC which will have to be funded by taxpayers and, in any case, it is as yet unclear whether such a tax would be levied on such properties or on the owners of those properties and, in the latter case, it would be reasonable to presume that a property held equally in joint names of two people would then have to exceed £4m in value before it would generate a tax liability. In France, this kind of thing is quite different in that more kinds of personal taxes are levied on family units rather than on individuals and, whilst this could in theory be introduced in Britain, its implementation and operation would require considerable additional legislation and come at an enormous additional cost which, again, would have to be borne by the taxpayer.

Another currently much-vaunted assumption is that those with inherited wealth tend to spend it far less than those whose wealth is derived from employment or business and that those who don't spend it are affecting growth adversely by so doing (this all seems to be an offshoot of the "spend your way out of recession" argument); even if that might be true to some extent, perhaps a reverse VAT might be considered as a possible solution - i.e. a tax on NOT spending!...