Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
To say money is a concept is as ridiculous as it gets, go to Tesco and tell them that at the checkout.
So is talk of socialists and capitalists, as if the former spend their lives working for the good of others while the latter eat babies. In my experience socialists seem far more concerned with money than anyone else.
I cant decide if Tom is a wind up merchant or a bored old Trot with too much time on his hands.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The failure of a Government to manage the economy stems from the time such was gifted away by your old friend Thatcher.
The rest of #60 is but hokum previously swept aside by my #59.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
If money is not a complete 'concept', why is it that so many are set to pay for the folly of so few. Why is it that profit is individualized, but loss is generalized?
[I am glad David, that today you feign to grasp what I have written...truely a step in the 'correct' direction.
]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Tom you are using the word 'money' when you mean 'wealth'.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Tom, what do you mean "loss is generalised"?
I can name several on the forum who run a business, I'll absolutely guarantee any losses they incur is not generalised, it very personal indeed.
You seem obsessed and bitter that some people are better off than others, I can tell you I am far from wealthy but I'm very happy for others to be as long as its legal. Then having made money its entirely tht individuals right to do what they wish with it.
I'm still chucking at your "money is a concept" theory btw, try it out in a few of the pubs at midnight on saturday.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Losses become more generalised when a business goes totally tits up. Then they are shared out among suppliers, the banks, HMRC and sometimes employees.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
[No, I do mean 'money']
But, all is not (necessarily) doom and gloom. [with a caution as to language]...
http://www.laughspin.com/2012/07/02/watch-denis-learys-new-patriotic-video-for-kiss-my-ass/Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
But most wealthy people have relatively little money.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Nobody 'has' money Peter, money is but a concept.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Money is cash in your wallet and black numbers in your bank accounts. Anything else you own represents wealth but is not money. Speaking as an economist, not as a philosopher, of course. I restrict philosophising to after dinner with a good bottle of People's Port.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Well said Peter.
Tom #62 The failure of the government in running the economy is the result of years of spend, spend, spend in an unsustainable way. Keynes is the left's favourite economist as he provides them with a reason to allow a deficit to build but the problem is that the left ignore the other part of Keynes rule, you balance the current account during the growth phase of the economy. Brown ignored that and increased the deficit while the economy was growing resulting in cuts now having to be made in a recession.
If you do not balance the current account in the growth phase, Tom - when would you balance it? Brown, of course, boasted he had defied the natural laws of economics and banned boom and bust, he said so, but I am sure you are not that blind to reality to have believed him.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Barry, quite why I rate a mention in your re-regurgitating of the same old stuff is a puzzle, and no mistake.
"The failure of the government in running the economy is..." Why only the other day it was 'deregulation' that was to blame.
"...in an unsustainable way." I do wonder at times just how you can hold so many poly-polar views simultaneously. And yet, your insistence on the 'coin' of fiscal competence having only one side goes some way to give the whole a certain well-roundedness.
There must be, to my mind, another side to each and every coin. Why is it that taxation never gets much of a look-in? There is said to be but two things certain in life;death & taxes, and yet you would rather rail from the grave that the only real certainty is 'death' and even then one's hard-earned must live on without us.
I am not in favour of spending willy-nilly, but the lack of will to run-down tax owing, coupled with the non-show of growth shows the Conservatives up as well-and-fit on the condemnation front and loath-and-sickly on the production front. What happened to all your assurances that a cut in the top-rate would ignite the economy's booster rockets?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tom I am very consistent in my critique of the economy. Just because in one answer I did not go through all the many contributing factors to the present problem does not mean the other factors are suddenly forgotten. Neither have I blamed deregulation as such, I have blamed 'changes to the regulatory system' making reference to the tri-partied system introduced in 1997 that let the banks off the hook, clouded reporting lines of control and reduced oversight.
I have suggested a range of policies that are needed to help economic growth that includes a reduction in the top rate preferably to 40p or even less. The reduction to 45p does not take effect until next year incidentally and remains above the optimum top level, specially when the real rate is 47p. All of this is against a background of the Euro crisis impacting on 40% of our exports, a crisis that makes it even more important to get to grips with the domestic economy in the way I have consistently suggested.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
quite a lot gone on here since my last post,
noted that david little has come out of the closet, i presume as an anti socialist.
tax's get up everyones goat, i pay like most others far to much
whilst davids view that its ok to get paid millions if you abuse the tax system in a legal way doesnt hold water with those struggling to find where there next meal comes from
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I didn't read anywhere that David has come out of any closet, he wasn't suggesting or promoting abuse of tax either; your twisting things again Keith, creating your own interpretation of what people have written.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
hes happy as some others are of people earning vast mounts of dosh(well not earning, but getting) whilst others struggle to find where there next meal comes from.
i'm not surprized you defend david as you often come from the same viewpoints
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Some people will always struggle and others will earn loads of dosh, that is a fact of life that will never change and, quite frankly should not change. What you do not do is punish the rich because they are rich with penal taxation because that has been shown to solve nothing and merely creates more problems. Many people go through periods of tough times finding it difficult to cope and many come through that and some prosper. Some never will, they just do not have it in them to do the work needed. Others, of course, really are vulnerable and do not have the physical ability to work and improve their circumstance, these are the ones who need some support and i have no problem with that.
I have lost count though of the people I have met who plead poverty but smoke 20 a day, have the full Sky package and binge drink. They make their choices and it is right they do so but they should not be bailed out by taxpayers.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
maybe we agree partly on this although the rich bit cant go with
its the other end that concerns me the most, where people struggle to find the next meal, and that situation is deepening with the more people ou throw on the scrapheap
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Keith, what a strange interpretation of what I've posted.
I'm not anti socialist, I just believe it to be an unworkable theory, heaven knows why you've gone off at a tangent about millionaires and tax.
These people who are being "thrown on the scrapheap" - where is this happening and who is doing the throwing?
