"The slow death of the Real Job is pulling society apart"

[dennisr]

farnborough is a real shite hole by the way

 

[nino_savatte]

likwe i said .. you both neither support local people being employed .. tarannau supports the bosses 'best person for the job' ( thats done us great trusting the bosses LOL) .. and MC support migrants being employed before locals cos he is SOOOO anti-RACIST LOL

You're still making it up. I suppose the reason for this is because you can't form a coherent argument to save your life. It's easier to lie and to smear than it is to read, digest, comprehend and form your own opinions or ideas. Innit?

 

[Gmart]

You can bluster all you like Dennis, but you have still persistently ignored my responses. I replied to everyone of yours and all you do is send vitriol rather than actually engage, and then you accuse me of that.

You call me moaning, but it is you who is actually moaning about how unfair life is, without actually trying to find a reasonable solution which people might accept. you said:

where did i do this?

twice, but of course you didn't actually say these things I said, you just implied it. Do you now see the difference between actually saying something and not? No doubt you felt hard done by to be misquoted, but of course I don't exist to you and so you can do the same thing to me without barely a whisper of conscience.

Still you'd rather argue like this rather than actually start on the points I've raised. You don't want a debate, you just want a fight.

 

[dennisr]

You can bluster all you like Dennis, but you have still persistently ignored my responses. I replied to everyone of yours and all you do is send vitriol rather than actually engage, and then you accuse me of that.

I think you mistake thew reaction to the pain of banging one's head against the brick wall that is your repeated and arrogant stupidity for 'vitriol'. Bluster is the result of having no substance to back up one's initial presumptive and bald statements - so agin - an example of projection on your part mate

You call me moaning, but it is you who is actually moaning about how unfair life is, without actually trying to find a reasonable solution which people might accept. you said:

No, sorry to have to have to repeat myself for you - as before - YOU accused those critisising you of of 'moaning'. i have definantly accused you of both arrogance and stupidity on a number of occasions now - because YOU do not reply to the points made. This is your third or fourth attempt at claiming you are being misinterpreted; that those critising you are not raising any valid points only moaning. Thats what I call 'moaning' - and its on your part. I can copy and repeat the substantive points made for the third time if you like? but expect this to be a waste of time on my part, given the result will be more bluster and moaning on your part. And you report a post - you sad wanker

You have come out with (and been taken up on...) what are bald and either incredibly naive or genunely idiotic statements/assumptions about 'freedom' and the 'need to be competitive'. (just a couple of examples from the full list) But have not made a single sensible acknowledgement - let alone a substantive answer - of the critisisms of these assumptions when raised - hence my accusations that you are very, very arrogant in your stupidity

I have said very baldly on a number of occasions - my life is fine thanks - funnily enough i am actually a 'businessman' - i run a business, its quite successful at the moment. That fecks your initial assumption about the reasons for my disagreeing with you does it not?

twice, but of course you didn't actually say these things I said, you just implied it. Do you now see the difference between actually saying something and not? No doubt you felt hard done by to be misquoted, but of course I don't exist to you and so you can do the same thing to me without barely a whisper of conscience.

Still you'd rather argue like this rather than actually start on the points I've raised. You don't want a debate, you just want a fight.

So you imply again with this 'wit' (without pointing to any proof what soever to support your previous lies...) that you are not saying others are lazy. Yes, you did imply that - its soaked into every excuse you give for the failing of an economic system - which thus far has come down to:

a) its the way it is (i am assuming you mean, 'one cannot change it - and therefore one should accept it)

b) stop moaning and accept it (ie anyone who critisisies this state of affairs is just moaning)

c) the employees (not the fecking employers - whom i can only assume have no responsibilities in this at all - judging from you previous comments) should be more flexible - stop being so lazy at school (a reasoning given - on your part - for these employees 'failing' to be 'flexible' enough), continually retrain, accept lower wages.

You talk the modern version of 1984s 'news speak' - you talk in abstractions that had real consequences for real people. Abstractions that ignore the human cost - that demand (on behalf of the employers) more flexibility on the part of their employees only. You try to pin the usual daily mail line of lazy employees unwilling to change (not re-training - at their own cost it would seem - and not knuckling down at school; and when they do stick their head above the parapet - you argue they are 'moaning' and not 'getting on with it' cos 'its the way it is') and ignore the role played by the very working and consequences of the economic system you defend uncritically

And you say i am not answering queries made.

idiot

 

[dennisr]

You can bluster all you like Dennis, but you have still persistently ignored my responses.

see below: (and its dennisr

Terrible, neither does News International, and I think that's bad too, everyone should pay the right amount of tax while the government which we vote for should ensure a tax system with no loop holes so that industry pay their share. Sadly, the temptation might be to keep the loop holes so that the jobs are created. What to do...

We don't disagree on the need for multinationals to pay more of a share. See my point on who controls any tax system (above).

How much does 1p buy in the local economy? Very relevant that, and if it is NOT a living wage, how many people have died so far?

Depends on definition of living wage (and of course who makes that definition). The days were 16+ hours - the woman interviewed had stopped sending her child to school becasue she could not afford it.

Actually - i don't think we would seriously disagree on the wrongness of the extremes of poverty being enforced here so did not reply to your point. Were we would disagree is the cause/the reason/the source of this situation I think. i think it is built into the very need to make a profit - into the way the system operates. The point is made elsewhere and angled in another manner in my replies (above) though.

I know, life's not fair, sympathy and support if you can afford it.

its not enough - and that is not a serious answer.

Because of the currency exchange rate.

that is not an answer - that is one of those half baked things you learn in CSE Economics - didn't bother to take the point up in detail

Neither works but capitalism is the system which allows freedom and is thus usually preferred.

see points on use of the term freedom and your assumptions/definitions of freedom (above)

Yes it is, it shifts the supply of unskilled workers curve to the right on your basic supply and demand curve graph.

You yourself have said that employees have to be more 'competitive'. Immigrants are allowed in becasue they will work for less by employers - they are not the cause but a result of the manner in which the economic system works

Yeah funny that, only the second thing I agree with you on. I would suggest that we have a more modern tax system which takes money more equally from all the sections of society which are making money, thus inproving the competitiveness of the country and the economy etc. See this thread.

We probaly agree on more than you think - once you move away from assumptions and the off pat learnt homilies - once tyou consider the points made. See my reply (above)

That's funny because the first person to use the word 'lazy' on this thread is YOU in #34 where you use it twice, then you go on to quote yourself and then incorrectly quote me as saying it. I would go on about a slur on my character and that I demand an apology, but actually I'll just laugh at your own ineptness instead. Note though, that you have falsely accused me.

see my reply (above)

is that all clear enough for you?

Christ, i'm bored today with work...

 

[tarannau]

You yourself have said that employees have to be more 'competative'. Immigrants are allowed in becasue they will work for less by employers - they are not the cause but a result of the manner in which the economic system works
?

Who is it 'allowing' immigrants in because they work for less then?

Last I heard we had free movement of people in the EU, for better or worse, limited migration, a small number of asylum seekers and a good few illegal overstayers.

Many of those benefiting from limited, legal migration tend to be higher up the food chain that cheap labour - US Web experts, corporate bankers etc.

 

[Gmart]

see my reply (above)

is that all clear enough for you?

Not really, you still accused me and didn't retract it.

Still if you feel like discussing it, what do you expect that boss of a company in a competitive business to do. Either compete by using more temp staff and cutting the work force, or go out of business, thus causing everyone to lose their jobs?

You see we might agree that it shouldn't be this way, and we can cry until our Mummy's tell us everything will be alright. OR we can live in the real world and deal with it how it is, rather than how we wish it were if only people weren't such bastards.

And you still called me a wanker, twice, among other names.

If you cannot keep a civil tongue in your mouth, and start behaving like an adult discussing adult subjects about the real world I will simply ignore you.

 

[dennisr]

Who is it 'allowing' immigrants in because they work for less then?

Last I heard we had free movement of people in the EU, for better or worse, limited migration, a small number of asylum seekers and a good few illegal overstayers.

Many of those benefiting from limited, legal migration tend to be higher up the food chain that cheap labour - US Web experts, corporate bankers etc.

Yes, there is an element of truth in the arguement that one could not, ultimately, stop all immigrants desperate for a better life coming here - border controls or no border controls. This is a point I have made, as part of a wider arguement, on a number of occasions to those putting immigrations controls forward as an 'answer' to the problems of the race to the bottom in the UK at present. And, yes, of course it is those higher up the food chain who primarily benefit.

The fact is though that the wave of recent immigration could be massively reduced by making working conditions and living conditions harder. The employing class will use immigration controls as and when its feels the need to (probably as a response to the possible results of (and fear of the possible consequences of ...) the reaction and resentment caused by the 'race to the bottom').

It already has in the restrictions on bulgarians and romanians. And the EU governments would change this 'free movement' if the consequences became to hot for them. This 'free movement' was only introduced as a way of lowering wages - it is not some unbreakable principle of life. the question is who controls the setup and in who's interests do they operate.

Anyway, it kind of misses the point of the reply to Gsmart. (and opens up another thread to the diversion down the same old arguements by the same old posters about immigration - which i was trying to avoid). I would argue immigration is not the CAUSE of that lowering of general wages. That was the point being made above.

Immigration is a consequence of the way the economic system operates and results in the 'race to the bottom' if employees allow themselves to be forced into 'competition' for ever decreasing wages (or 'be more competitive' as Gsmart calls it) rather than using organisation, through the trade unions, to maintain and improve conditions jointly - immigrant or non-immigrant

 

[dennisr]

And you still called me a wanker, twice, among other names.

diddums - remember i also called you arrogant in your stupidity (or something very similar)

If you cannot keep a civil tongue in your mouth, and start behaving like an adult discussing adult subjects about the real world I will simply ignore you.

That gives you the excuse to avoid defending your previous trite and ignorant comments. i like to provide a convenient service

Fine - fuck off then

Just remember that 'adult subjects' involve 'adult discussions' not childlike, ignorant cheerleading of given homilies - stick to the kiddy subjects you know more about in future

 

[tarannau]

The fact is though that the wave of recent immigration could be massively reduced by making working conditions and living conditions harder.

What does this actually mean? How do you make living conditions, in particular, harder? As far as I'm aware most illegal immigrants tend to live in some pretty awful conditions, not being entitled to social security or housing

Or do you propose some kind of different taxation/living/working conditions for EU migrants as well?

 

[Gmart]

The fact is though that the wave of recent immigration could be massively reduced by making working conditions and living conditions harder.

You want to make working and living conditions harder for your fellow man? What kind of monster are you?

the question is who controls the setup and in who's interests do they operate.

Why is this important? Making money is what motivates the private sector to create jobs, while creating jobs and idealism is what motivates the government to finance the public sector.

I would argue immigration is not the CAUSE of that lowering of general wages. That was the point being made above.

And that was the point I answered by pointing out that actually immigration increases the supply of unskilled workers thus moving the supply curve to the right, thus reducing the wage. For there to be no change in wage the supply curve would have to be perfectly elastic.

if employees allow themselves to be forced into 'competition' for ever decreasing wages

How exactly are they allowing themselves? By not being in a union? And if they are, imagine that somehow they win their strike and get pay which is above the market rate for that industry. Well the firm would go out of business and then EVERYONE would be out of work.

Start talking sense, or better still learn some economics if you don't know it, and stop spreading bad economics. It's OK not to know, you could ask a question or even read the replies, coz I've explained this one to you already.

blah

 

[tarannau]

How exactly are they allowing themselves? By not being in a union? And if they are, imagine that somehow they win their strike and get pay which is above the market rate for that industry. Well the firm would go out of business and then EVERYONE would be out of work.

That's not entirely true is it. People may be willing to pay may for a product that's produced locally, perhaps even one of higher quality as a result.

Sadly it's also bloody unlikely - look at the lack of success of the 'Buy British' slogan and the output of the British motor industry. People may talk the talk, but they're rarely willing to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[dennisr]

What does this actually mean? How do you make living conditions, in particular, harder? As far as I'm aware most illegal immigrants tend to live in some pretty awful conditions, not being entitled to social security or housing

Or do you propose some kind of different taxation/living/working conditions for EU migrants as well?

Probably not well put - but you give some good examples anyway about how this government have already made living conditions harder for some. The way in which many immigrants tend to live under such conditions is a result of laws. Making it illegal to work means you have less rights for starters when working. You answered your question yourself. Folk would not want to move to a country that put to many obstacles in their way - if there was easier alternatives

Of course there are plenty of extremes the UK government would not dare to enforce (at present, if we were being cynical about it...). The sort of laws introduced in the past in say 1930s-1940s germany

The only thing i would propose is that workers organise themselves - and those other workers that could otherwise be used to further attack their conditions or living standards

 

[tarannau]

But that makes no sense DennisR. Illegal immigrants already suffer from awful working conditions, no state support and widespread exploitation, yet they still are apparently 'swamping our country in ever increasing numbers' (copyright Daily Express). Short of organising official lynch mobs and stoning anyone who looks a bit' 'foreign' it's a bit of a mystery how we could make living conditions for some immigrants 'harder'

Or are you proposing that we give the French/Germans/Italians who live here as part of the EU agreement a harder time as well?

 

[Xerxes]

By not being in a union? And if they are, imagine that somehow they win their strike and get pay which is above the market rate for that industry. Well the firm would go out of business and then EVERYONE would be out of work.

The conclusion of this, is that the most efficient industry is one that pays its workers enough to put food in their bellies, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs, whilst producing goods for people to buy. But no-one can buy them because they only get enough for their basic needs. The firm goes out of business and EVERYONE is out of work.

What then?

 

[Gmart]

The conclusion of this, is that the most efficient industry is one that pays its workers enough to put food in their bellies, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs, whilst producing goods for people to buy. But no-one can buy them because they only get enough for their basic needs. The firm goes out of business and EVERYONE is out of work.

What then?

Decent post. Indeed if we assume that everyone is in a perfectly competitive industry, then this would occur. Luckily (or unluckily depending on your view), perfect competition and perfect knowledge which is also one of its assumptions (that everyone knows everything relevant in their market), does not exist in the real world, and the market is mostly made up of oligopolies which are making good but not too good profits, and monopolies who are often making a fortune. These industries pay the rich who (along with those who already have money) finance the economy thru spending. Also having money makes money if you have enough, and this also adds to the effective demand. This is all basic economic theory.

 

[dennisr]

But that makes no sense DennisR. Illegal immigrants already suffer from awful working conditions, no state support and widespread exploitation, yet they still are apparently 'swamping our country in ever increasing numbers' (copyright Daily Express). Short of organising official lynch mobs and stoning anyone who looks a bit' 'foreign' it's a bit of a mystery how we could make living conditions for some immigrants 'harder'

Or are you proposing that we give the French/Germans/Italians who live here as part of the EU agreement a harder time as well?

Tarannau - I am not calling for ANYONE to suffer from any harder conditions. You have completely misread my own position on immigration (as opposed to what i fear could be introduced by those in power to serve their interests).

I don't see myself as part of some national 'us' v 'them' - I think my own native boss class are the problem.

Try reading what i wrote first - rather than assuming you know where I am coming from.

You may well be assuming that recognition - on my part - that being forced to fight (unequally) over the crumbs dropping from the big man's table in a 'race to the bottom' is a bad thing for the majority of people can only be equated with a daily express anti-immigration position - which would be a mistake on your part.

 

[tarannau]

What does this actually mean in practical terms then Dennisr? Genuine question - I'm a little confused as to what you're getting to.

The fact is though that the wave of recent immigration could be massively reduced by making working conditions and living conditions harder.

 

[dennisr]

You want to make working and living conditions harder for your fellow man? What kind of monster are you?

usually I am accused of the opposite. I think the operate word you quoted is 'could' that is very different from 'should'.

Given you think workers should lower their wages 'to make themselves more competitive' - your question should be aimed at yourself

 

[dennisr]

What does this actually mean in practical terms then Dennisr? Genuine question - I'm a little confused as to what you're getting to.

There have been endless threads in p+p on immigration

my position is clear from this thread: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=191922&highlight=immigration

on this thread i was making an initial side point (aimed at the folk who usually start the immigration threads) that immigration controls are not the answer to the danger of a lowering of wages that can result from workers forced to compete against each other. At the same time I recognise the mistake of some of those opposing immigration controls of simply argueing that there is no resulting problems - ie that there is no attempt by employers to use immigrant labour in an attempt to enforce a 'race to the bottom'. At the same time i am not saying 'immigration' is the cause of the problem - the later side point I made to Gsmart.

My argued solutions - see post 5 on that thread + the following practical examples throughout the thread after that point raised by plenty of other folk as well as me

 

[dennisr]

Decent post.

The same point I had made previously.

 

[Gmart]

There have been endless threads in p+p on immigration

my position is clear from this thread: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=191922&highlight=immigration

I think your position is quite clear from the quote that tarannau gave.

There seems to be a constant theme of yours towards the world. You claim not to be part of the us and them issue but you do go on about it. The rich are taking too much of the cake for your liking and you wish to convey that you think it is unfair and that it should change. Well of course, most people would agree with you as do I, but I for one am not going to run away from reality in an effort to find a solution. There are possible solutions which might be accepted by our democracy, but there are others that will not, and therein lies our difference.

You say that I feel that a worker should lower their price to compete. That is not exactly what I meant to say. I think that they should accept the market they are working in, or get out of that market by re-training or getting a better job if it exists or even finding a gap in the market and going into business themselves.

It is unrealistic to expect the businessmen of the UK to accept a party who wants to pile more regulation onto them than their competition has. I might wish that everyone was a millionaire but i'm not going to get distracted by such flights of fancy.

 

[Xerxes]

Decent post. Indeed if we assume that everyone is in a perfectly competitive industry, then this would occur. Luckily (or unluckily depending on your view), perfect competition and perfect knowledge which is also one of its assumptions (that everyone knows everything relevant in their market), does not exist in the real world, and the market is mostly made up of oligopolies which are making good but not too good profits, and monopolies who are often making a fortune.

By your own argument any firm that is unable to compete goes out of business, so capitalism tends towards monopolies or cartels which become effectively monopolies. In which case there is either no competition or in the case of cartels limited competition. Employers can then set the wages and conditions of workers to maximise profits and lead to the circumstance outlined in my previous post.

These industries pay the rich who (along with those who already have money) finance the economy thru spending.

This looks like a rehash of the discredited tickle down theory, do you really believe that an elite super rich can keep an economy bouyant by their spending alone?

Also do you really believe that a small (comparitively) elite should live in unsurpassed luxury whilst every-one else can only satisfy the basic needs of life?

Also having money makes money if you have enough, and this also adds to the effective demand. This is all basic economic theory.

Can you explain this in more detail, demand is finite, once the initial rush to buy a new product is over the demand settles down either to replacement level, or people upgrading to a more advanced product.

As for your arguments being basic economic theory, whose? There are many economicists some of whom disagree with your statements, others of whom agree to a greater or lesser extent. Who is the economicist that you are using as a source?

 

[dennisr]

There seems to be a constant theme of yours towards the world. You claim not to be part of the us and them issue but you do go on about it. The rich are taking too much of the cake for your liking and you wish to convey that you think it is unfair and that it should change. Well of course, most people would agree with you as do I, but I for one am not going to run away from reality in an effort to find a solution. There are possible solutions which might be accepted by our democracy, but there are others that will not, and therein lies our difference.

If 'us and them' means national v foriegner - i am not claiming to be part of that
If 'us and them' means boss xv worker then i am definatly claiming to be part of that

You are either an employer or (more likely) a wannabe lacky - therein lies our difference. You try to find excuses to legitimise the status quo - i don't. You are 'I'm alright jack' as an internet persona.

A constant theme of yours is that everybody who dares to disagree with you is a fantasist, a moaner, unrealistic etc. You have repeated this endlessly, alongside the usual daily mail type slurs at the critics - i suppose if you say it enough you feel it may become true. That is what bugs me about you and people like you. You are the one moaning here - at the 'cheek' of the likes of me for pointing out the emporer you uncritically cheerlead has no clothes. You are the one being unrealistic in argueing that we should all shut up and 'accept' the whims of a 'market' run by idiots following the same ideology as you.

You say that I feel that a worker should lower their price to compete. That is not exactly what I meant to say. I think that they should accept the market they are working in, or get out of that market by re-training or getting a better job if it exists or even finding a gap in the market and going into business themselves.

the 'market' is not some abstract or neutral entity. People do accept through lack of choice generally - acceptance does not mean they should not point out the obvious contradictions or search for more rational alternatives. part of your arguement was 'stop complaining' something that leads me to suspect strongly that you - personally - consider that 'I are doing well out of it - so feck everybody else' (with the occasional pang of guilt) - therefore you are part of the problem.

 

[Gmart]

Xerxes

By your own argument any firm that is unable to compete goes out of business, so capitalism tends towards monopolies or cartels which become effectively monopolies. In which case there is either no competition or in the case of cartels limited competition. Employers can then set the wages and conditions of workers to maximise profits and lead to the circumstance outlined in my previous post.

Good synopsis, though it does not lead to a position where no one has any money to spend in the economy, I responded quite clearly to this previously.

You go on to describe the trickle-down theory as discredited. Well I agree, it doesn't trickle down quite as much as most would like, and in developed countries this trickle down gets less, though in China it has resulted in MILLIONS being pulled out of poverty. You are correct that this theory is used as an excuse to maintain the status quo.

As for the product, it really depends on the nature of the product, different products have different life cycles. Also the built-in obsolescence is an issue too.

The economist who wrote the best on effective demand was Keynes, but much of this is going back to Adam Smith, who described the workings of the market in his 'Wealth of Nations' book.

Dennis

leads me to suspect strongly

You just can't help guessing can you? If you want me to continue with this debate, then please stop with the guesses and the insults. You have no idea who or what I am. I could be Bill Gates for all you know, or a recently unemployed islamic radical, but please lets just deal with the facts.

A constant theme of yours is that everybody who dares to disagree with you is a fantasist, a moaner, unrealistic etc.

You fail to engage on the issues as I see them. You seem obsessed with fighting the class war as you see it, while ignoring that these bosses you despise so much actually create jobs for your fellow man, who you seem to ignore as irrelevant. That is why I find your arguments to be mostly fantastic and more usually attacking me because you don't seem able to keep up with the economics.

You are the one being unrealistic in argueing that we should all shut up and 'accept' the whims of a 'market' run by idiots following the same ideology as you.

I'm sorry, were you going to tell us all what you would say to all the people who depend on this 'market' for the food on the table, the roof over their head and the life they lead. imagine that you are the PM. What would you do instead? Or are you just limitted to whingeing?

That gives you the excuse to avoid defending your previous trite and ignorant comments.

Trite and ignorant eh? You wish! Well specify which ones you feel are thus and I will comment.

This country would be in a mess if we didn't have the people starting businesses and maintaining businesses as a commercial venture to continue the employment of the workers. If we decided to take too much from these people then their money would leave the country as would they, leaving a right mess, not some ideal society. Go to India, there you will see a country without the safety nets we take for granted, there is true suffering. There are real problems here, as you can see but let's stay in the real world. I would like to discuss solutions which are realistic, not based on some ideology which doesn't take into account human nature, or history for that matter.

 

[dennisr]

I'm sorry, were you going to tell us all what you would say to all the people who depend on this 'market' for the food on the table, the roof over their head and the life they lead. imagine that you are the PM. What would you do instead? Or are you just limitted to whingeing?

That market depends on the work of those people - 'dependency' goes both ways.

Those people where there before the 'market' so this 'dependency' - and the resulting contradictions within it - could lead to the conclusion that those people don't actually need the 'market' - that the 'dependency' is very much one-sided, that it has become a burden.

In reply to the final comment - no, thats you, mate - you really have to stop this projection onto others, you know

So, do expand on how this 'market' has dragged 'millions out of poverty' in China

Come on, help me to 'keep up with the economics' ...

 

[dennisr]

human nature

Ah - human nature - you had to come to that eventually.

So tell me how this state of affairs is 'natural'? expand on its 'inevitability'?

 

[dennisr]

You just can't help guessing can you? If you want me to continue with this debate, then please stop with the guesses and the insults. You have no idea who or what I am. I could be Bill Gates for all you know, or a recently unemployed islamic radical, but please lets just deal with the facts.

But you are probably just an idiot who would not know honest debate if it slapped him in the face?

Again projection - you are one one who tried the assumption game - your critics must be educational failures (wrong...), not willing to re-train (wrong...), simply fighting the class war that somehow closes their minds to your 'deep' economic insight (what on urban75??). Now you raise that catch-all cover of 'human nature' as a cover for your own ignorance. Just continue to ignore the facts - hypocrite.

You may well want to be like Bill Gates - but you are definatly not - i imagine he has a better understanding of economics, Gsmart.

Ohh, and its 'dennisr' as i said before.

 

[butchersapron]

Market theology in full effect - it rots even those who think they're on the right side. Thatcher what have you wrought!?

 

[Gmart]

That market depends on the work of those people - 'dependency' goes both ways.

Those people where there before the 'market' so this 'dependency' - and the resulting contradictions within it - could lead to the conclusion that those people don't actually need the 'market' - that the 'dependency' is very much one-sided, that it has become a burden.

Both the suppliers and the buyers need each other, Or if you insist on separating the workforce, then the lowest need the highest. Oh, no doubt there is a thick slice of the middle management who do as little as they can while trying to justify their jobs. But the upper management works very hard to keep the orders coming in and to keep all the arms moving in the same direction as it were.

Take for example the rich CEO's in the market, getting millions for a job. They do a job for which there is a demand. You may as well whinge about Elton John charging 100 quid a ticket. That is the price, that is the demand. If Elton stopped then he would ose the money if the customers stop, then another 30,000 will turn up the next day and take the tickets.

In reply to the final comment - no, thats you, mate - you really have to stop this projection onto others, you know

So, do expand on how this 'market' has dragged 'millions out of poverty' in China

Come on, help me to 'keep up with the economics' ...

Actually sod this, you have proved yourself to be unreasonable, I have no need for this. Go and look it up yourself, or maybe read something.

Everyone knows how screwed the world is, it is as obvious as the nose on your face. However I find your conclusions to be lacking in thought and at times quite abhorrent, while your tendency to attack the character of those who disagree with you stinks of immaturity.

Goodbye