Productivity?

[MrGongGong]

You have to admit it worked for 36% of the electorate - which is all you need, so long as it's the right 36%.

Sadly true
but it's still a lie and dishonest i'm afraid

Nice to see Scotty advancing the cause of materialism :-(

[P. G. Tipps]

Sadly true
but it's still a lie and dishonest i'm afraid

Nice to see Scotty advancing the cause of materialism :-(

On the contrary 'it' is, I most humbly beg to submit, so very true and an honest and realistic appraisal of human nature, Mr GG.

According to my trusty Oxford Dictionary (which I thoroughly recommend to others) 'materialism' is defined this:

1. (usually disapproving) the belief that money, possessions and physical comforts are more important than spiritual values.

2. (philosophy) the belief that only material things exist.

Well, needless to say, neither of those beliefs could be further from the truth as far as I'm concerned, Mr GG.

However, that does not mean I cannot appreciate the value of a pleasant and relaxing fortnight's holiday in the Seychelles, a glass to consume a Bell's whisky or two , or, indeed, the proposed purchase of an orchestral gong and tam-tam by my local orchestra.

Such things might be perfectly acceptable and indeed thoroughly desirable to many of us, not least myself, Mr GG!

I wonder what Flossie thinks ... :winkeye:

[MrGongGong]

On the contrary 'it' is, I most humbly beg to submit, so very true and an honest and realistic appraisal of human nature, Mr GG.
:

A song for you Scotty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxe7MAkUMOE

It's not "Human Nature" at all to be without empathy

[Dave2002]

All these things on public money are undoubtedly admirable but, like the NHS, they need a thriving private sector and economy to provide adequate support for them in the first place.

Where do you think a significant amount of money which goes to the private sector comes from? I think a lot of it comes via government or other public sources.

[MrGongGong]

You cannot run a modern sophisticated economy the way you run a tuck shop at Eton.

Jimmy McGovern

[P. G. Tipps]

Where do you think a significant amount of money which goes to the private sector comes from? I think a lot of it comes via government or other public sources.

Er ... doesn't that money come from the private sector in the first place?

Society needs both but the private supports the public as in any other aspect of human activity!

[jean]

That's bound to be the case if the government sells off any state-run enterprise that might be profitable.

[Flosshilde]

I wonder what Flossie thinks ... :winkeye:

I think that, as usual, you are talking nonsense.

And winking at me won't get you anywhere.

[Flosshilde]

the private supports the public as in any other aspect of human activity!

?

[Serial_Apologist]

Er ... doesn't that money come from the private sector in the first place?

Society needs both but the private supports the public as in any other aspect of human activity!

No; money is just a chosen means of financial exchange that replaced barter in the dim and distant past. But the finance behind money still comes from bosses taking a disproportionate proportion of the wealth created by others making products and thereby adding value to what were original raw materials "belonging" to nature, as it were, or was.

That wealth - in whatever form - gold bullion, shares, whatever - is only in private hands because of an accident in history that despotically granted those with more money the controlling hand over what would be done with it. A different system would put that money "in trust", under democratic control, to be used initially for solving all society's basic needs like food, warmth and shelter, which is quite obviously not the case under the present system.

[P. G. Tipps]

No; money is just a chosen means of financial exchange that replaced barter in the dim and distant past. But the finance behind money still comes from bosses taking a disproportionate proportion of the wealth created by others making products and thereby adding value to what were original raw materials "belonging" to nature, as it were, or was.

That wealth - in whatever form - gold bullion, shares, whatever - is only in private hands because of an accident in history that despotically granted those with more money the controlling hand over what would be done with it. A different system would put that money "in trust", under democratic control, to be used initially for solving all society's basic needs like food, warmth and shelter, which is quite obviously not the case under the present system.

Accident of history or no, it does sound very much like you are now advocating a sort of John Lewis Partnership system of government for the UK, S_A ... ?

Having had no little experience in that area I am sad to report that stuffing the system with 'democratic control' in the form of powerless committees does little to reduce the huge divide between the Lord Percys at the top and the Baldricks at the bottom. The bosses, whether born with a mouthful of golden-spoons or ruthlessly attaining their positions, will always make sure their wealth is secure before embarking on the more minor considerations of others. Come on, S_A, wouldn't you do the same?

Countries like Germany have proved it is perfectly possible to have a vigorous and productive mixed-economic society, able to compete with and even outclass the more laissez-faire capitalism of others, and yet still provide a good standard of living for the majority of its citizens and an adequate safety-net for those at the bottom, all enjoyed under a fully democratic system.

It is self-defeating not to recognise the huge 'aspirational' and 'innovative' elements in capitalism as well as acknowledging and then alleviating its more unacceptable weaknesses.

So it would be utterly mad, imv, to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater when any known economic alternative creates stagnation, replacing the bosses with an even more self-serving shower than went before, and then discovering basic individual freedom for the worker and citizen has somehow 'gone for a Burton' as well.

[Serial_Apologist]

Accident of history or no, it does sound very much like you are now advocating a sort of John Lewis Partnership system of government for the UK, S_A ... ?

Having had no little experience in that area I am sad to report that stuffing the system with 'democratic control' in the form of powerless committees does little to reduce the huge divide between the Lord Percys at the top and the Baldricks at the bottom. The bosses, whether born with a mouthful of golden-spoons or ruthlessly attaining their positions, will always make sure their wealth is secure before embarking on the more minor considerations of others. Come on, S_A, wouldn't you do the same?

Of course - the system being set up in such a way as to prioritise individual interests at the expense of the whole, which it ends up not doing.

Countries like Germany have proved it is perfectly possible to have a vigorous and productive mixed-economic society, able to compete with and even outclass the more laissez-faire capitalism of others, and yet still provide a good standard of living for the majority of its citizens and an adequate safety-net for those at the bottom, all enjoyed under a fully democratic system.

Germany, the most destroyed country, began from scratch after WWII with the latest technologies and most efficient productive apparatus, backed by the US, as tradeworthy nation, economic bastion against Communism, and exemplar of what capitalism could be capable of delivering in terms of efficiency, wealth creation, initiative and class collaboration. Don't forget, unlike the British ruling class, who, boasting their Empire, just stuck up two fingers at government bids to create all-round mutually beneficial conditions for business if they ditched outmoded management models, the German ruling class was defeated and in no position to undermine the successful moves to bring trade union representation to the boardroom. Germany thus had a head start over its "victors" - followed down the line by Japan.

It is self-defeating not to recognise the huge 'aspirational' and 'innovative' elements in capitalism as well as acknowledging and then alleviating its more unacceptable weaknesses.

At the same time it is wise to recognise these advantages as always temporary because its overall unplanned nature leads periodically to overproduction, or rather the inability of the market to absorb and process what effectively becomes too much product, in relative terms.

So it would be utterly mad, imv, to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater when any known economic alternative creates stagnation, replacing the bosses with an even more self-serving shower than went before, and then discovering basic individual freedom for the worker and citizen has somehow 'gone for a Burton' as well.

Periodically the consequence of the capitalist mode of production & distribution for the reasons I've explained, stagnation in what have been described as planned, socialist and communism systems was ascribable to the top-down distribution of decision-making embodied in them, which was itself a mirror image of western capitalism, the only difference being in that the privileged decision-making party managers of the former were presiding over a planned system of resource allocation which - as WWII proved for the USSR - would have worked had it not been for the political suppression of individual initiative along with human and democratic rights, which (along with ecological issues which to be fair no one in power understood in the 1920s and '30s) were the lessons finally to be learned from what came after October 1917.