Tesco getting free workers

[lost]

there were two distinct times in the UK's empire building, one where the natives were respected as near-equals and one where they weren't.

While the development of Singapore falls in the second, it's much more related to the first by it being an extension of the Hong Kong route and so much more like the methods used there.

[eFestivals]

Look I'll just post the index: http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking I think most people would be able to see if they wanted to live in the free countries or the ones suffering from government repression.

which of course has nothing to do with us having been brainwashed into thinking "govt repression bad, repression by individuals and corporations good".

But repression by individuals & corporations isn't good, and we all know it. We know it's bad, but because of brainwashing we get confused about what do do when (for example) the banks steal all our money.

Its not corruption though. As you correctly pointed out in a thread recently when we give government powers to clamp down on terrorists it also gives them the opportunity to use these powers against its own people and non terrorists such as iceland. Its the same concept economically as socially they may consider iceland terrorists in the same way they may consider proping up banks and 2 houses for themselves legimate uses of public money. Remember Animal farm? The animals that lead the revolution deserve the most food.

yeah, it's hideously bad that the animals that lead the revolution deserve the most food and we all know it.

But we don't have any problem at all with the fact that the animals that lead the banks deserve the most food.

Spot the difference? There is none. But set firmly in your mind thru propaganda, one is hideously bad while the other is to be admired.

Yes there is as we've already established a body making one decision can not explore as many facets as 60 million independent minds, there will be either one large failure or success vs 60 million failures and successes, many of which will bring efficiency gains and innovation out of the scope of a single body.

and yet there's nothing to stop the second being done without the bankers etc stealing all the money. The only reason it doesn't happen is because we've been brainwashed into thinking there's nothing bad about the bankers etc stealing all the money.

I don't think anyone is arguing for a pure anarchist society and equally a fully planned economy is impossible as black markets will always spring up. We were discussing the concept of a body setting wages and being able to react to skill and product shortages. If people don't move into a sector where shortages exist to gain reward something else has to drive it and all attempts at other systems have far have been failures.

I've never mentioned such a thing (the bit in bold), why do you think I have?

The answer is: you have been brainwashed into thinking that is the only alternative. It's not. But it's why attempts at something different have been failures.

You are just as able to be 'brainwashed' - or even free-thinking - into thinking that different methods are possible, and those different methods produce a better result.

But we've already established the banking system is centrally planned not capitalist The bubble was caused by the mis-pricing of money via the central bank.

.... at the behest - the demand - of the free-market banks.

They don't your talking about corporatists

I am. But the pretence, the brainwashing, is that it's free market and beyond reproach.

Nothing should be beyond reproach, including the free market and corporatism. If it were given the same amount of effort of dismissal as the ideas of 'socialism' are then we might stand a chance of getting somewhere positive.

[lost]

yeah, it's hideously bad that the animals that lead the revolution deserve the most food and we all know it.

But we don't have any problem at all with the fact that the animals that lead the banks deserve the most food.

Spot the difference? There is none. But set firmly in your mind thru propaganda, one is hideously bad while the other is to be admired.

Edited March 10, 2012 by lost

[kaosmark2]

Where have I said that? I completely agree infact at the time I remember you critising the tories "do nothing approach" to bailing out the banks. I said it was a bad thing have have stood by that opinion since, i'm glad you've finally come round to the idea having a government big enough to enrich themselves and their friends in the banks is bad.Well done we are getting somewhere.

[lost]

How is that a big government problem? Same happened in America. Corrupt policies designed to make the politicians and their wealthy friends even richer happens all over the world.

Left-leaning, large-governments don't create banker alliances. Bad governments do, whether they're left-wing or right-wing.

Edited March 11, 2012 by lost

[kaosmark2]

If the government is constitutionally limited it can't do it. This would be the solution I would suggest. Also using America as a "right wing" example it really isn't one of the economically free countries anymore (see the link I posted) its public sector has just ticked over 40% GDP, its top rate corporation tax is 39.25% highest in the G8 (ours is 28%) and theres a bill going through in California currently that would put the top rate of income tax upto 60% in that state.

[lost]

But constitutionally limited is an entirely different issue from big vs small government.

[eFestivals]

As we've aready established for banks to steal money it needs a large enough complicit government to bail it out.

Not at all. The theft was been going on for 30 years. The bailout was just the icing on top of the cake.

You were suggesting the wages Barry deserves weren't you in the other thread? If you want Barrys wages set by the market rather than a government body/individual then thats fine, we agree again.

the fact of Barry's wages get to prove that "the market" is no better at setting wages.

The reality is that there is no market. There is only a self-sustaining and self-justifying idea, which at its heart is a scam.

Nah central banking is a socialist ideal.. Its one of Marx's 10 planks of communism

care to show me how a capitalist system can work without a money supply from a central source?

[eFestivals]

So in your future utopia who should set what everyone is paid Neil ? You ? The Government ? Internet forums

a true market rate would be better than there is currently.

You said you quoted and got £100k for doing a loan application system, and justified that rate by the increase in business that the loan firm got.

Based on that all being true (which I hugely doubt, unless it took you two years to do that system, based on what you say you earn ) ...... And yet the loan firm couldn't have known in advance in you'd deliver them that increase, or even anything special, and yet they were obviously wanting a new system to give them something better for their business so an improvement was expected by them anyway.

So what justifies that £100k you say you were paid? There was nothing you could have said in advance that could have justified it, because that's merely hot air, and everyone else that quoted would have spouted the same hot air. And was a two year wait for delivery something their business could stand? Hugely unlikely.

So what you have is the likes of you talking yourself up and failing to deliver, but getting the rate anyway. That ain't market economics, that's fraud.

[eFestivals]

I asked you who should determine who gets paid what and you have no answer... I keep asking you such questions and you have no answers...

I have the answers and I regularly give them to you, you're just blinded by greed and unable to see them.

Company A does a deal with Company B... It should be up to those two companies to decide on the fee (within the boundary of law)...

Or if Company A does a deal with Employee B then by and large (obviously we have laws like NMW) it should be down to them to agree the fee....

How should this be changed ? Who should force the hand in these relationships ?

and within the boundaries of morality and fairness. Why do some ideas apply but not the others?

Companies have shown they don't do morality and fairness, which is why a National Minimum Wage has had to be introduced. They fail on the same basis on the other end of the scale no less.

[eFestivals]

The number could of been 100k, 1 million or 10p... That isn't the point...

PMSL

What the number is is the whole frigging point!!!

[eFestivals]

Just very simply say who should be controlling how much companies pay other companies and / or employees... and how they come to who should get what...

Are we allowing the people freedom to launch enterprises, seek that promotion and be masters of their lives... Or do we assign the people their role for life and unlucky if they don't like what's given...

The govt *ARE* controlling how much people are paid. They use morality and fairness as the basis for that. It's called the NMW.

Something is required at the other end of things too.

[eFestivals]

So you want a national maximum wage ?

care to say where I've said anything like that? Your problem is that your mind is soo so exceedingly small that you're unable to think.

The need of a minimum wage proves the failings of capitalist free market systems. Therefore reasonable justification cannot be given for its use at the other end of the scale either.

That is all I have said, to prove to you that what you wish to accept as a perfect system is not that perfect system.

Things can only move on to start to talk about what might be a more perfect system once the numpties like you are able to accept just how poor the system that you back on the basis of your huge greed and on no other basis actually is in reality.

If it was as perfect as you like to suggest there would be no need for a minimum wage.

[eFestivals]

What about dividends ? Investments ? Pensions ? Interest from Savings ? Profit from buying and selling of housing for example ?

all of these things are things which are unearnt.

They are money for nothing, the robbery of others, of no ultimate difference to kicking down the door of the house next door and stealing their stuff.

[eFestivals]

It would seem you say a lot without actually saying anything at all then...

I don't claim to have all the answers. It's you doing that, via your insistence that the market works as well as things are able to work.

And yet the necessity of the NMW shows that the market does not work as well as things can work.

All the while the likes of you are unable to recognise the logic conflict of what you say against the necessity for a NMW, the likes of you stop any progress towards anything better. And of course you would do, because it's you that are creating and benefiting from the immoral and unfair system which exists now.

[eFestivals]

So how would you change it ? Would you stop people buying and selling houses... Would you stop the cost of housing going up and down ?

Actually don't bother...

People can but and sell houses, I've no problem with that. I've not even got any problem with the cost of housing going up or down based on REAL reasons for the change in price (such as an area going up or down in popularity based on real changes in that neighbourhood or improvements or deterioration to the physical state that property).

As things stand, it's - guess what? - the govt that control house prices. They do this via the amount of land that they allow to be released for housing against the changes the in population and cultural housing need.

And for the last 30 years, mostly as the result of council houses having been sold off and the political idea that those people should profit from that to vote the same party into power again (something done by all parties, not just the party who started that trend), the govt has been proportionally reducing housing stock and falsifying the market - and benefiting the already-rich and disadvantaging the already-disadvantaged as a consequence.

Which has brought about high rents, which has brought about the need for high benefit payments and all the things you love to moan about but which are as a direct result of the things you so admire.

You never bother to join up the dots of these things, and yet you love to state how perfect the market is - a market that you can't understand if you never join up the dots.

[eFestivals]

I suppose in the end there is a reason why some people go out there and change the world and others just sit on here with all the solutions...

I couldn't tell you what that reason is though...

EDIT: Oh i remember... Because we are all c**ts...

I refer you to Germany. Once you've read all about it and understand it come back and slag off the things you've said you so love up till now.

[kaosmark2]

I refer you to Germany. Once you've read all about it and understand it come back and slag off the things you've said you so love up till now.

[eFestivals]

They really get it right over there. Bastards.

I know, they're right bastards paying living wages to their trainees against the best principles of capitalism and yet get to make much better profits and have much better success in both the short-term and long-term as a result.

And they're right bastards letting the workers into the boardroom for something more than to be laughed at, and having higher standards of living, and they're right bastards for having lower employment with the lower welfare issues that causes, and affordable housing, and the likes of Barry not stealing all the money for doing fuck all.

What we need to do is invade those bastards and force some real capitalism on them. That'll teach them.

[kaosmark2]

I know, they're right bastards paying living wages to their trainees against the best principles of capitalism and yet get to make much better profits and have much better success in both the short-term and long-term as a result.

And they're right bastards letting the workers into the boardroom for something more than to be laughed at, and having higher standards of living, and they're right bastards for having lower employment with the lower welfare issues that causes, and affordable housing, and the likes of Barry not stealing all the money for doing fuck all.

What we need to do is invade those bastards and force some real capitalism on them. That'll teach them.

[eFestivals]

Loving the idea that Germany doesn't operate capitalism

It doesn't operate capitalism - at least, not in the manner that you believe it to be.

The pursuit of profit is not everything; earning as much as you can and fuck everyone else is not everything.

There is a moral side to what they do that is absent from how you personally believe capitalism should operate.

They're the sorts of people who would give up their 3rd holiday (which you believe to be your own inalienable right) as undeserved and instead put that money towards giving someone else the opportunity to be as successful as themselves.

How you believe capitalism should be is not how all people believe it should be - and yet that different version is not the North Korea that you love to mindlessly present it as because you're too stupid to see the bigger picture.

Edited March 12, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You really do talk some shite don't you...

One of the places I am going on holiday this year is to my friends apartment in Majorca. Its near a place called Port Adriano. Its a very nice area of the country. All along that region there are lots of little ports (some bloody big ones as well) and docked there is yatch after yatch after yatch. They cost more than I could ever dream of having. Without doubt the number of flags sailing in those ports are German flags. The sort of socialist that even make Blair look left wing...

Here is a nice German family now... No doubt given up much of their hard earn income...

As I keep saying, you just don't get it - and every post you make gets to prove it.

The reason you don't see so many British yachts is cos the Brits do things in different ways, within the economy to pan out in a different way. The money that is made is more concentrated in huge wealth, meaning less moderate wealth ... so instead of buying tin-pot yachts like in your photos they're buying super yachts of £10M+. My bruv does very well from them.

The Germans get the return to have such things as those yachts because they invest as well as take. You version of capitalism is only about taking; it's not the only way, and it's not even the most sensible or successful way.

[eFestivals]

German GDP ? Service fuelled economy ? Wasn't you saying that is a bad thing which was really just theft ? Or is just when I do it its bad...

There is more to any economy than the headline turnover figure.

What is important is how the turnover is created.

Does Germany operate capitalism in the same way as the UK? Nope.

Is Germany a far FAR more successful economy than the UK? Yes.

Why is Germany more successful? Investment, rather than just taking.

And funnily enough, my other brother works in Germany, not because he earns more (he doesn't) but because he benefits more via the structure of their economy.

[eFestivals]

We can put that point down as dodged then

When you have even the most basic grasp of economics - after you showed beyond all doubt that you have none at all a week or two back - come back and re-start this conversation.

Capitalism where only personal greed is the driver works in the way that you see capitalism as working. Not all capitalism is the same, as higher-investing and more successful version that's operated in Germany gets to prove beyond all doubt.

But talking about your lack of understanding of economics, perhaps you should be asking yourself why the successful schools in Chelsea are now budgeting for a cut in half their funding to match the expected cut in half their pupil numbers.

I'll give you a clue: it's not because the rich residents in Chelsea are planning on leaving this tax haven for the rich that's known as the UK.

[lost]

care to show me how a capitalist system can work without a money supply from a central source?