So is it society we support or a free market economy ala the conservatives? Personally support the intrinsic humanity of mankind .
Are you posting after the pub ? Most would accept the need to regulate markets but the question would be to what extent. Personally I would suggest 'as little as possible', but I am only a (very) amateur economist.
John absolutely post pub . But it is a question I have been meaning to ask as we appear to have a diverse membership
i am more of a natural selection kind of guy, but i am pretty sure id be one of the first to get eaten.
It's got to be capitalism - because it works and it's not a bad system, all things considered. It's even quite a natural system. But it needs some sort of regulation, because otherwise you have child chimney sweeps, sweat shop labour and the über rich with all the money. And that is unfair and makes most folk unhappy - giving rise to unstable societies, which, oddly enough, don't favour wealth generation.
Post WW2 there was the rise of the USSR and the US and they competed on the world stage to see which system was best. The US and capitalism bankrupted the USSR who increasingly spent more and more on the military and grandiose schemes leaving less and less for the people. Our wealth today is directly attributable to capitalism which clearly out produced socialism. So for me the question of where do we go from here is much more interesting. The quality free time that industrialisation, mechanisation and the technological revolution promised has not materialised for the many and wealth has been concentrated in the hands of the few. What do you do with the great unwashed who are surplus to requirements now that industry can produce all we need cheaply and efficiently ? How do you share wealth now 'wealth' is created by adding a few noughts to a central bank balance sheet ?
US vs USSR was capitalism vs communism, not socialism. You could argue that capitalism has freed up "quality time" but that people lack the imagination to use it, spending it shopping or watching TV or playing video games, or like ourselves, pissing about on the net. Your points are essentially valid, though. Interestingly, socialism, which would share out the wealth from the machines and automation, you are dead against.
Socialism would end up with the machines grinding to a halt due to lack of maintenance. Aneurin Bevan was aware that the Welfare State, a cornerstone of socialism, risked becoming more than a safety net by removing the incentive to go out and get a job; cradle to grave socialism went on to destroyed that incentive for a large sector of society. Socialism puts the collective ahead of the individual. I believe the individual comes before the collective, but I also recognise that we need 'society' to function. I am tending more towards Libertarianism these days.
Capitalism?.................................I doubt it......... ......nearly everything these days is in lower case; owing to t'internet, email, mobile phones and the appalling standards of grammar and punctuation
My issue with capitalism, and I'm not yet fully versed on it so I might be about to spout some more crap, is that it depends on never ending growth. It's been sustained by the huge population growth since the industrial revolution, but eventually the world will be full and there will be no one left to sell to. Where does capitalism go from here?
I think growth and whether it can be sustained is indeed central to the issue. Population growth and industrialisation has produced the hugh increase in consumption that has fueled economic growth up till now, but that process seems to have stalled. Is that a temporary phenomenon or more lasting ? Capitalism depends upon a return on investment, or interest paid on a loan, so it is difficult to understand how the process can continue expanding indefinitely. The article suggests that people are now surplus to requirements, so what do you do with those people ? I am sure those recently meeting in Davos will have very bright futures, the elites always have, but what happens to the proles ?
Social mobility has also greatly affected capitalistic economies. I can't see what all the fuss is about the East Europeans though. When it comes down to it, there's not a lot of difference between the British, the Polish, the Bulgarians and the Romanians. We all drink too much booze, eat lots of meat and none of us want to be in Poland, Bulgaria or Romania.
I was talking about this earlier this evening with a Romanian and a Serbian, they told me that the same issues apply in their countries with a general east to west migration ocuring within much of Europe.
One sweeping generalisation I can make about the Romanians is that they're not stupid. They learned a lot living under communism and now they're making the most of being a member of the EU. You would too, if you were in their shoes.
Here is a useful phrase ... Spelled how it sounds.... 'Beleetzash puula' it means pull your c*** and is used as an expression of disbelief. Always raises a chuckle and not really offensive,
If I am looking for someone to join my team, I like to see someone who is prepared to work hard, has enthusiasm, willingness to learn. Formal relevant qualifications and experience may be required, but are secondary in my view. I would rather have a hard working, enthusiastic and willing "Romanian / Bulgarian / any other nationality" than someone that is not.
