Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
One question remains to be answered, Barry:
If, as you state, £67 JSA is enough to live off, then why don't the bankers get £67 a week salary?
Or £6,13 an hour?
Especially as they have stuffed their bank accounts full of money and shares anyway.
My remedy remains the same as previously expressed: confiscate all surplus wealth of the rich. Total lack of any compromise only leads to the furthering of extreme views.
One extreme that has the upper hand and only inflicts suffering and will know no reason, will inevitably feed the opposite extreme.
Of-course it should all come about democratically and constitutionally, through reason, hence the necessity to introduce legal laws in Parliament to put an end to the injustice that plagues our society, and to put an end to the unelected forms of unjust and privileged governance, be it the upper house, the so-called royal family or the City-bankers.
Reason and Democracy will prevail. It will come about peacefully!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mark I do not suggest that all in poverty deserve it though many are in that position because of their life choices. As l have said, as long as there are opportunities for people to climb out of that where they have the motivation and will to do so. People do have to make choices and accept the consequences if they make a bad one.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well said mark
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
What you are saying can only be described as utterly bonkers Alexander and it is a route that would create far more real poverty in this country. Think of the real consequences of your legalised theft, think of how people's assets are really held, think of the damage to businesses and employment, think of the damage to investment. We would also have a totalitarian state of which Hitler and Stalin would be proud not some socialist fantasy paradise, it would be hell on earth.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
there are some i will agree with you that could by a change of life do more for themselves.
but im talking as mark is about those unable to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that is the problem keith, jobs nowadays need skills that some people cannot attain.
when i left school there were sweeper ups, tea persons, general odd job coves and night watchman jobs.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
that may be part of the problem
there still are night watchen(persons)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, living wage is the answer. As I understood it, living wage is higher than minimum wage.
Legalised theft in my view is charging people absurd interest rates on loans, allowing hard-working people to lose their only home through eviction once they cannot keep up in the cruel race of our speculation-ridden society.
It has all changed now. No they should not get 30,000 a year bonus, and not 300,000 a year salery either.
The top bankers have morally compromised themselves, taken part in causing immense suffering on society, and should be replaced altogether in their job.
They should find another job where they can't inflict injustice on society, away from economic and financial power-levers.
You showed me what no compromise is, you explained it, and that no pleading or reasoning can suffice.
The result is an extreme opposite determination with no compromise.
The one great law in my ideal is that it must be legal, through Parliament, through reason and justification, and without inflicting cruelty on those who were cruel to society.
Nothing to do with Hitler and Stalin!
I am a commoner, and believe in the House of Commons.
My ideal is the original meaning of the Commonwealth as once imagined in the 16th and 17th centuries in England, but which was never achieved owing to the greed and cruelty of people like Henry VIII and his capitalist cronies who were lords and aristocrats.
It must be for the common good, Barry. We share this world in common. We must learn to respect each other and have just laws without cruelty.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander
the theme of your thread that we should all be in this together
has a different meaning when you talk to barryw
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
In fact, Keith, I believe the whole idea of shares should be examined. Shares should not be object of speculation.
The idea should be: you buy shares, and receive a dividend on the company's profit in accordance with your amount of shares. When you sell them, you get a set price for them.
The banks should not be dealing in shares, they are probably the ones who cause wild fluctuations on the share markets.
The whole system of banking needs to be revised from the foundations, with a drastic shake-up at the top. The banking system as we know it now by all rights died its natural death in 2008 after long and agonising suffering.
What we see now are just nerve-reactions of a dead monster called the banking system that had hundreds of billions of tax-payers money pumped into it, or rather, printed money that popped out of a press machine..
Those places like Wall Street, where crowds of shouting men stand about sticking fingers up ad a digital screen, making twists with their hand and facial expressions... will all pass away soon.
Speculation is running its final lap.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
As I said Aexander - what you are saying is utterly bonkers and very foolish. You are trying to redesign the facts of life and an economy without knowing a thing about how it works or the reality and consequences of what you are suggesting.
Guest 695- Registered: 30 Mar 2010
- Posts: 426
More than bonkers... doesn't even deserve a reply in showing such naivety. It would bring a complete economic collapse as no business would be able to sustain growth, the list goes on... aaargh [falls on the floor in frustration]
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Of course we live in an economic system that requires a level of poverty/unemployment to keep wages down and profits up. Look at the number of jobs that nowadays are short term contract or part-time; that suits the employer. For me though the issue is not so much the relative poverty, which we in this country, have some safeguards against, but the relative wealth as shown from this piece below:
From Le Monde diplomatique by Serge Halimi:
Between 1983 and 2006 the share of national income pocketed by the richest 1 per cent in USA almost doubled, from 9 to 16 per cent ... Between 1966 and 2001 the median salary in the US increased by only 11 per cent in real terms. But the 10 per cent of workers who are the highest paid registered a 58 per cent increase in income, and the curve climbed ever more steeply to reach a 121 per cent gain for the top 1 per cent, 256 per cent for the 0.1 per cent richest and 617 per cent for the 0.01 per cent most prosperous. Sharing is a thing of the past. The winner now takes all..
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Is there a similar set of figures for the UK.?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mark - you could not be more wrong, our economic system does not 'require a level of poverty' the opposite is true. The more spare dosh people have the more goods and services can be bought. We need more overall wealth through greater wealth creation and that can only be done by the private sector, if its allowed to do so by interfering politicians.
You need to worry less about how much the better off have and more about creating opportunities for the less well off to improve their circumstances through working.
I see that an experiment recently found that strange things happened to Job Seeker claimants who were expected to work to earn their benefits. Immediately 20% of them stopped claiming while another 30% refused to do the work expected of them and had their benefits stopped. It seems these people were earning 'on the black' and preferred to lose their benefits than their 'black earnings'. Hopefully this will be run out over the whole country.
Boom. Bust.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Of-course I know how the economy works and doesn't work, Barry.
The process of redefining economy to what it is supposed to be is on-going.
In the past, all these paper investment schemes that banks run nowadays, did not exist. People worked, produce was distributed. People obtained products according to their financial means and according to their necessities.
The more equally wealth was distributed, the better people lived. And the more money was spent on private luxuries by the rich, or on wars, the worse off were the people.
Money should be considered part of the economy, so the more of it ends up in private pockets, the less there is for the rest of the economy.
The present banking system is based on speculation. Speculation is powered by greed, and inevitably brings a functional economy to an end.
Your problem, Barry, is that the £900 billion+ sovereign debt that we have, and the trillions of pounds of private debt in our Country, is all put down to Gordon Brown.
It's your magical want to explain every negative aspect of our indebted situation. The fact that other countries have equal or worse debts, where Gordon Brown has nothing to do with it, doesn't seem to ring a bell that G. Brown cannot be the root cause of the problem.
The cause is the banking system itself as we now know it, and speculation in general, including in the housing market, in the share markets and on the employment market.
Saying "you don't understand anything about economy" is the same as saying "Gordon Brown caused all the banks' problems".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - you are just demonstrating my point in that you are talking about things you know nothing about. There is not a single thing in your last post that is factual or even in the real world, including the things you claim of me.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 78...classic....
.``There is not a single thing in your last post that is factual or even in the real world,including the things you claim
about me``.......................Pot and Kettle!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Oh really Reg....... you carry on in denial, head in that weird socialist paradise ignoring economic facts of life wanting the world to stop, so you can get off, no doubt taking Alexander with you!
