Making the poor better off

[RickyM]

Sure. If you want to be paid third world labour rates.

 

If we have fair pay then we wont have third world rates of pay.

 

Get rid of the fatcats at the top and the money trickles down, to be shared fairly amongst the workers.

 

Poverty gets alleviated and the tax revenue rolls into and the government can pay the debts off and then start spending on the things we all need and want.

 

Where's your ambition?

[unbeliever]

If we have fair pay then we wont have third world rates of pay.

 

Get rid of the fatcats at the top and the money trickles down, to be shared fairly amongst the workers.

 

Poverty gets alleviated and the tax revenue rolls into and the government can pay the debts off and then start spending on the things we all need and want.

 

Where's your ambition?

 

You can't pay people what you don't have.

Low productivity means low wages. There's no getting away from that.

As evidenced by every attempt at implementing socialism in the real world.

 

I can understand how it seems to you like a nice idea. Utopian even.

But it's been tried over and over again and it just doesn't work the way you want.

Money is representation of productivity. Reduce productivity and you unavoidably reduce everybody's living standards.

Removing labour saving technology removes productivity. Removing the most skilled and able people removes productivity.

You can have full redistribution if you like. But everybody will be poor. To the extent that I doubt it would be long before there was not enough food to go around.

 

Look at Zimbabwe, North Korea, China under Mao, not to mention the USSR.

They can't all be just bad luck, or a single bad apple.

Your assertion that Gorbachev broke the USSR is silly. If it's so fragile that a few years of bad leadership will kill it, then it was going to die before too long anyway.

[RickyM]

You can't pay people what you don't have.

Low productivity means low wages. There's no getting away from that.

As evidenced by every attempt at implementing socialism in the real world.

 

I can understand how it seems to you like a nice idea. Utopian even.

But it's been tried over and over again and it just doesn't work the way you want.

Money is representation of productivity. Reduce productivity and you unavoidably reduce everybody's living standards.

Removing labour saving technology removes productivity. Removing the most skilled and able people removes productivity.

You can have full redistribution if you like. But everybody will be poor. To the extent that I doubt it would be long before there was not enough food to go around.

 

Look at Zimbabwe, North Korea, China under Mao, not to mention the USSR.

They can't all be just bad luck, or a single bad apple.

Your assertion that Gorbachev broke the USSR is silly. If it's so fragile that a few years of bad leadership will kill it, then it was going to die before too long anyway.

 

I'm guessing you can't be helped. That's something for you to worry about when you are homeless, ill, need help with care when old, need educating, need representation at a tribunal because of exploitation by an employer and lots of other examples!

[El Cid]

Poor growth figures.

 

Do those at the top still get well rewarded when their companies show poor growth; I guess that is the "free market" not functioning properly.

Just like when the top people set their own pay.

[RickyM]

Do those at the top still get well rewarded when their companies show poor growth; I guess that is the "free market" not functioning properly.

Just like when the top people set their own pay.

 

Spot on!

 

The rich need to be rewarded to make them work harder whilst the poor need to be threatened with cuts to pay and services to 'incentivise' them.

 

Capitalism isn't working and doesn't work for the majority.

[banjodeano]

Spot on!

 

The rich need to be rewarded to make them work harder whilst the poor need to be threatened with cuts to pay and services to 'incentivise' them.

 

Capitalism isn't working and doesn't work for the majority.

Yeah, but 90% are brain washed into thinking it works best oooooh we cant take money off the rich, it will not work that way, it has to be like this to work lol

[RickyM]

Yeah, but 90% are brain washed into thinking it works best oooooh we cant take money off the rich, it will not work that way, it has to be like this to work lol

 

It's ridiculous.

 

They all get their information from the media which is all owned by multi-billionaires that are doing quite well with the current system.

 

It astonishes me that people go along with the austerity agenda and fail to realise that the economic mess was because of the banking crisis and not because of public spending on welfare and services.

 

They will regret it one day in the not too distant future........

For those that reject austerity or want to find out more, see the link below.

 

South Yorkshire People's Assembly: http://sypeoplesassembly.org/

[unbeliever]

It's ridiculous.

 

They all get their information from the media which is all owned by multi-billionaires that are doing quite well with the current system.

 

It astonishes me that people go along with the austerity agenda and fail to realise that the economic mess was because of the banking crisis and not because of public spending on welfare and services.

 

They will regret it one day in the not too distant future........

For those that reject austerity or want to find out more, see the link below.

 

South Yorkshire People's Assembly: http://sypeoplesassembly.org/

 

Oh dear.

 

It's not a question of media. I'm sceptical of all opinions on economics and sociology.

The history is what does it for me. Pure socialist societies get poor and then collapse. Primarily capitalist societies get richer. Yes the most able get richer faster, but everybody gets richer.

We can discuss how much redistribution a capitalism dominated system can take and how that can be organised. I'm all for looking after the poor.

But I'm not going to support an idea that history tells me always leads to widespread poverty, death and either collapse or reversion to capitalism.

 

Image that the state education was so good that rather than there being a small pool of people capable of running a big company, there were 10 or a hundred times more. People who's parents worked in co-op routinely ended up managing director of some huge company.

You might think that this just moves the "fatcats" around, but it doesn't. If there were 100 people available to do every top job in the country rather than just one, then the big companies would not have to offer such high salaries to get somebody who could do the job. You'd see the salaries at the top fall dramatically and no fallout at all as the companies would still be well run.

Nobody has to get lined up against the wall. Nobody has to starve. The gap between rich and poor reduces dramatically and there's at least as much money to go around as before.

We can make the world better without turning society on its head and stepping out into the catastrophe that is communism and all we have to do is get better at education. Let's start by copying the models and methods of the best educated people in the world, then see what we can do to improve on them.

[El Cid]

Pure socialist societies get poor and then collapse. Primarily capitalist societies get richer. Yes the most able get richer faster, but everybody gets richer.

 

How other countries govern themselves interests me. We can learn from other countries. Which capitalist counties are 'doing it right'?

[banjodeano]

How other countries govern themselves interests me. We can learn from other countries. Which capitalist counties are 'doing it right'?

I think Iceland are doing ok.......................now