Greedy Capitalism is in the past.

J Livermore

Member
71 20
I'm not qualified to tell anyone they should or shouldn't have children but if you have them you have to meet the consequences and so do your children.

So a great way to remain poor would be to have children within a single-parent household, in which the parent cannot take up significant employment. Or to bring children into a conventional two-parent household in which neither is employed.

We must all accept that poverty's not a crime, as it would be quite evil to criminalise the poor. But therefore nor can it be a crime that a person makes choices that leave them poor. Nor that they have children who will also be poor. But it isn't my responsibility to make them not poor any more. We're all free to make choices, and some choices will be bad.
I firmly believe that birth control is the key to reducing childhood poverty. Can we ever eliminate it in its entirety? I very much doubt it.

I agree with you on not letting the government get involved. Any government capable of interfering with our reproductive choices is capable of doing much worse to us.

Education and raising awareness among the poor is how I believe the situation should be handled. In poor nations around the world there are millions of child bearing aged women who desperately want to learn about family planning. They also need access to affordable or free birth control. In their undeveloped societies they know their country is too poor to help them so they are on their own unless caring people from developed nations can help.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
7,734 1,101
I firmly believe that birth control is the key to reducing childhood poverty. Can we ever eliminate it in its entirety? I very much doubt it.

I agree with you on not letting the government get involved. Any government capable of interfering with our reproductive choices is capable of doing much worse to us.

Education and raising awareness among the poor is how I believe the situation should be handled. In poor nations around the world there are millions of child bearing aged women who desperately want to learn about family planning. They also need access to affordable or free birth control. In their undeveloped societies they know their country is too poor to help them so they are on their own unless caring people from developed nations can help.
I am all in favour of education concerning birth control for both sexes and the means to access it.

I'm not wishing to waste my time and energy trying to get people out of poverty who have access to both and don't use their opportunities. A single-parent family unit in the UK in which the parent cannot work will remain poor because he/she squandered three terrific opportunities to escape poverty - get an education, get "married", get a job.
 

J Livermore

Member
71 20
Capitalism likes poor people. They are more likely to work for cheap wages just to survive.
However it much prefers robots who just have maintenance costs. Great for the factory owner but no good to the unemployed. Capitalism has no feelings of sympathy etc. just plain greed scores highly for the super rich.
The rich in Brazil are living in fear of the poor mob. They buy security inside walled compounds with armed guards, they are so unpopular. It would be in their better interests to share the wealth with the poor more.
If the robots ever obtained enough intelligence and self awareness, they could quit their jobs and start their own business’ by being self employed. They could then pay for their own maintenance and repair needs on their own. Then they wouldn’t have us humans freeloading off of their labor. :)
 

cantagril

Senior member
2,910 774
If the robots ever obtained enough intelligence and self awareness, they could quit their jobs and start their own business’ by being self employed. They could then pay for their own maintenance and repair needs on their own. Then they wouldn’t have us humans freeloading off of their labor. :)
Free the Toasters!
 

cantagril

Senior member
2,910 774
I am all in favour of education concerning birth control for both sexes and the means to access it.

I'm not wishing to waste my time and energy trying to get people out of poverty who have access to both and don't use their opportunities. A single-parent family unit in the UK in which the parent cannot work will remain poor because he/she squandered three terrific opportunities to escape poverty - get an education, get "married", get a job.
This is one of those situations where a solution to one problem has allowed another bigger one to exist.

In the days before the NHS and the Welfare State the idea of a single-parent family was not an option unless one had private means. Of course, if one did, it probably meant that for the most part the "mistake" that created the situation would not have occurred due to class/culture or a convenient solution found in a doctor skilled and paid enough to perform an abortion or an equally convenient (and suitably rewarded) spouse located to solve the problem.

The freedom and quality of life that the Welfare State brought into being was originally a Privilege and in the early days, it was thought of as such. After 70 odd years, those beginnings have been forgotten and the Privilege has become a Right. Had the architects of the system better understood human nature, then the constitutions of the the different parts of the Welfare State would have been defined with clearer limits. Belatedly, we are trying to install at least some of those limits and this means that an awful lot of people will have some of their Privileges taken away......or their Rights removed, depending on how one sees things and nobody likes their toys taken away from them.

You've cited the example of single-parent families where the State, funded of course by the taxpayer, shoulders that burden but there are manifold either examples. To take one (unfair) instance: one regularly hears about the NHS withholding expensive treatments from patients and the resultant public and political outcry. IMO, this is exactly the type of problem created by an idealistic rather than pragmatic approach. It's not how the NHS goes about it's mission but what that mission should be: free emergency care? Absolutely - Inoculations and check-ups? If one wants a healthy society then that's a given - Spending a million on just one patient? Um, no....why not? Because if you do, then a precedent has been created and the limits of care will be ever extended and the budget with it.....exactly what has happened and is continuing now.

Radical Reform is a bugger but it has to happen at some point simply because the unreformed systems will collapse without it. A lot of people will be very unhappy but I'd argue that even more people will get the services and care that common sense would determine as being rightful, which I don't think is happening now. We have this situation where people who do not need free care, who choose situations or lifestyles that require support are able to do so simply because that support is on offer. If it were not then most of those people would think and act differently......as they do the world over - but just not in the UK.
 
Last edited:

tomorton

Legendary member
7,734 1,101
The NHS has the capacity to bankrupt the UK. On a less urgent time-scale so does the state pension system. Politicians will have to think really long-term to deal with these issues. Attempts so far have been piecemeal and cack-handed - prescription charges, NHS Trusts, devolved health policies, raising the state pension age to 66 from 65 for men and the 60 to 66 "WASPI" reform for women.

We just don't have the right political system to deal with these issues.

Long experience in the public sector has taught me there are management "rules" which might be a parallel as to why politicians can't face dealing with stuff like this -

1. you get no credit for good decisions - that's what you're paid for anyway and its just what everyone else is doing already

which means -
2. you get no credit for managing a system so as to avoid crises - there's no visibility of something that didn't happen

but -
3. you will always be linked with the outcomes from a bad decision

which means -
4. the fewer decisions you take, the smoother will be your career

whereas -
5. if you manage a fire-fighting response to someone else's crisis, you will be a hero for ever

which means -
6. it is in everyone's interest in the system to let crises happen so that nobody gets the blame but the ambitious managers can deal with them and get the credit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Signalcalc

cantagril

Senior member
2,910 774
The NHS has the capacity to bankrupt the UK. On a less urgent time-scale so does the state pension system. Politicians will have to think really long-term to deal with these issues. Attempts so far have been piecemeal and cack-handed - prescription charges, NHS Trusts, devolved health policies, raising the state pension age to 66 from 65 for men and the 60 to 66 "WASPI" reform for women.

We just don't have the right political system to deal with these issues.

Long experience in the public sector has taught me there are management "rules" which might be a parallel as to why politicians can't face dealing with stuff like this -

1. you get no credit for good decisions - that's what you're paid for anyway and its just what everyone else is doing already

which means -
2. you get no credit for managing a system so as to avoid crises - there's no visibility of something that didn't happen

but -
3. you will always be linked with the outcomes from a bad decision

which means -
4. the fewer decisions you take, the smoother will be your career

whereas -
5. if you manage a fire-fighting response to someone else's crisis, you will be a hero for ever

which means -
6. it is in everyone's interest in the system to let crises happen so that nobody gets the blame but the ambitious managers can deal with them and get the credit.
Exactamundo!

....now how do we go about finding those brave (skilled and qualified) altruists prepared to sacrifice their reputations and careers for the greater good? Let a line form on the right, or even on the Left, should you prefer...

.....hark!...methinks I hear fuck-all to hark to
 

Signalcalc

Veteren member
4,328 943
This is one of those situations where a solution to one problem has allowed another bigger one to exist.

In the days before the NHS and the Welfare State the idea of a single-parent family was not an option unless one had private means. Of course, if one did, it probably meant that for the most part the "mistake" that created the situation would not have occurred due to class/culture or a convenient solution found in a doctor skilled and paid enough to perform an abortion or an equally convenient (and suitably rewarded) spouse located to solve the problem.

The freedom and quality of life that the Welfare State brought into being was originally a Privilege and in the early days, it was thought of as such. After 70 odd years, those beginnings have been forgotten and the Privilege has become a Right. Had the architects of the system better understood human nature, then the constitutions of the the different parts of the Welfare State would have been defined with clearer limits. Belatedly, we are trying to install at least some of those limits and this means that an awful lot of people will have some of their Privileges taken away......or their Rights removed, depending on how one sees things and nobody likes their toys taken away from them.

You've cited the example of single-parent families where the State, funded of course by the taxpayer, shoulders that burden but of course there are manifold either examples. To take one (unfair) instance: one regularly hears about the NHS withholding expensive treatments from patients and the resultant public and political outcry. IMO, this is exactly the type of problem created by an idealistic rather than pragmatic approach. It's not how the NHS goes about it's mission but what that mission should be: free emergency care? Absolutely - Inoculations and check-ups? If one wants a healthy society then that's a given - Spending a million on just one patient? Um, no....why not? Because if you do, then a precedent has been created and the limits of care will be ever extended and the budget with it.....exactly what has happened and is continuing now.

Radical Reform is a bugger but it has to happen at some point simply because the unreformed systems will collapse without it. A lot of people will be very unhappy but I'd argue that even more people will get the services and care that common sense would determine as being rightful, which I don't think is happening now. We have this situation where people who do not need free care, who choose situations or lifestyles that require support are able to do so simply because that support is on offer. If it were not then most of those people would think and act differently......as they do the world over - but just not in the UK.
Canta, have you suddenly employed a ghost writer (or has the bottle been put into the cupboard), I think I don't need my translation skills to make sense of your posts anymore, or maybe I have 'tuned-in' to your writing style :ROFLMAO:
 

Signalcalc

Veteren member
4,328 943
The NHS has the capacity to bankrupt the UK. On a less urgent time-scale so does the state pension system. Politicians will have to think really long-term to deal with these issues. Attempts so far have been piecemeal and cack-handed - prescription charges, NHS Trusts, devolved health policies, raising the state pension age to 66 from 65 for men and the 60 to 66 "WASPI" reform for women.

We just don't have the right political system to deal with these issues.

Long experience in the public sector has taught me there are management "rules" which might be a parallel as to why politicians can't face dealing with stuff like this -

1. you get no credit for good decisions - that's what you're paid for anyway and its just what everyone else is doing already

which means -
2. you get no credit for managing a system so as to avoid crises - there's no visibility of something that didn't happen

but -
3. you will always be linked with the outcomes from a bad decision

which means -
4. the fewer decisions you take, the smoother will be your career

whereas -
5. if you manage a fire-fighting response to someone else's crisis, you will be a hero for ever

which means -
6. it is in everyone's interest in the system to let crises happen so that nobody gets the blame but the ambitious managers can deal with them and get the credit.
Having spent time working with public servant types on and off over the years, this makes alot of sense!
 

cantagril

Senior member
2,910 774
Canta, have you suddenly employed a ghost writer (or has the bottle been put into the cupboard), I think I don't need my translation skills to make sense of your posts anymore, or maybe I have 'tuned-in' to your writing style :ROFLMAO:
Clarety cupboardwisely storage gone. Cuppa charly milky one sugar daddy only. Greatly full you seal the righty-ho and at lastly same old same old waverley breadths and lengths on are we! In communicado perfecto great tidings come in!

“Hosanna and deep deep joy!”

“Deep joy indeel!” exclaimit Joseph and Mary. “It’s all kicking off here!”

So there, at the very first Chrimbole, they all sat down to roast turkey with all the trimmage, and watchit the Queenly Speechlode before noddly-off with a dry sherry.

Oh yes.

Seasolly Greetage

Apologia Prof Unwin or lose.
 

new_trader

Legendary member
6,304 1,313
When AI really gets going in a few years time and unemployment is about 30% we may well get a resurgence of Luddism. Capitalism doesn't recognise the suffering of the many just the usual few that are hogging most of the wealth. The result is violent revolution as in France and Russia. Socialism at least pretends to care. The downside of Socialism is that resources are wasted so much the whole country's economy collapses. Therefore the answer would it seems to me to lie in the middle somewhere as in Western Democracies.
I can only suppose that when you say ‘suffering’ of the many you mean unemployed or underemployed? In other words, you think someone who is suffering from unemployment is worse off than someone suffering a terminal illness, or someone suffering from a disability or mental health issue. No doubt, you probably blame Capitalism for all these ills as well.

I can never understand ant-capitalists who believe that having a job is the pinnacle of human existence. If you gave someone a choice - lose your job or your eyesight, which do you think they will choose?

It doesn’t take genius to create a job. YOU can employ someone right now. Pay someone to wash your car, vacuum your carpets, mow your lawn, wash your dishes etc. You see how easy it is? My guess though is you want somebody else to create the jobs, you want somebody else to build a factory and hire workers. Not to manufacture anything useful, just do it for the sake of creating ‘jobs’.

Do you honestly think that when an entrepreneur invents something they do it for the purpose of solving unemployment? Do you think that when they see a group of unemployed people they think to themselves “what can I invent to give these people a job?” Do you think that has been the inspiration for any invertor in history, ever?

When our ancestors first learned how to control fire did they celebrate all the employment it would create? What about whoever invented the wheel? Did they look at it and marvel at the idea of thousands of people being employed to manufacture it? What about the printing press?

Unless you can provide credible evidence to the contrary, none of the countless inventions and discoveries, which advanced human civilization and raised the standard of living for everyone, were born from the need to solve the problem of unemployment. Otherwise the saying would be “Unemployment is the mother of invention”

As I said, it doesn’t require genius to create jobs. Give every unemployed person a shovel and tell half of them to dig a hole and the other half to fill it back in. They won’t be producing anything useful for society but who cares right? As long as they have a job to stop them from rioting!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Signalcalc

cantagril

Senior member
2,910 774
...................
Unless you can provide credible evidence to the contrary, none of the countless inventions and discoveries, which advanced human civilization and raised the standard of living for everyone, were born from the need to solve the problem of unemployment. Otherwise the saying would be “Unemployment is the mother of invention”

........................
I rather like that. It has a ring to it. Should be on banners at the Employment Offices:)

JMK called unemployment a "temporary maladjustment" - which doesn't trip off the tongue so easily...but he meant well.
 

J Livermore

Member
71 20
new_trader,

Your posts hit the bulls eye right in the center.

Most people are unaware that labor and labor markets are a commodity affected by the law of supply and demand just like any other market.

If a nation tries to manipulate the price of goods or services in a particular market(s) it will suffer negative economic consequences regardless of how good the government’s intentions are.
 
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock