Small human sufferings and UK government cuts

[tattuchu]

Did you give her a hug, Rum, or would that have been too awkward?

[Atheist-Lite]

I think Seth is right. It is easy to blame Capatalism but keeping multiple generations dependant on the state handouts which are gonna dry up one day is making a bargain with the devil. Socialism is all about hiding the bills under the rug. It is deeply flawed and it is responsible for the credit crunch by having massive social programs no state can afford. There will be much suffering over the next few years and the poor will bear the brunt but will socialists who caused the misery take any blame?

[Seth]

Seth, you brag about being a troll, so I can't take what you say seriously.
Which is just as well, given the content.
I prefer people who think for themselves.

Self-evidently, you do not. Self-evidently you prefer people who pander to your own leftist ideology and do NOT think for themselves.

[MarkS]

Surely it was unregulated "capitalism" ie the actions taken by the deregulated banks that caused this recession? Don't get me wrong, i think free enterprise is essential but so is it's regulation. Just like some aspects of "socialism" are essential to a civilized society. It's creating a proper balance that is the tricky part, ideologues on either side are simply unrealistic.

[Atheist-Lite]

Socialists make a plan then tell people what to do. This is their version of freedom.

[MarkS]

What a strange reply!

[Seth]

Surely it was unregulated "capitalism" ie the actions taken by the deregulated banks that caused this recession? Don't get me wrong, i think free enterprise is essential but so is it's regulation. Just like some aspects of "socialism" are essential to a civilized society. It's creating a proper balance that is the tricky part, ideologues on either side are simply unrealistic.

It's actually ridiculously easy to properly run a capitalist free market: Regulate using the police power of government to prevent instances of force or fraud. In other words, just keep everybody from hurting or stealing from one another, but DO NOT use the redistributive authority of government to meddle in the markets in an attempt to create "social justice" or pick and choose economic winners and losers in the marketplace.

If you do that, capitalism hums along smoothly and everybody benefits and nobody loses.

Every single failure of capitalism and free markets can be directly linked to government attempting to pick winners and losers in the marketplace as a part of a social engineering agenda, or corruption in government that allows the use of force and fraud without punishment. Every single one.

[mistermack]

I think Seth is right. It is easy to blame Capatalism but keeping multiple generations dependant on the state handouts which are gonna dry up one day is making a bargain with the devil. Socialism is all about hiding the bills under the rug. It is deeply flawed and it is responsible for the credit crunch by having massive social programs no state can afford. There will be much suffering over the next few years and the poor will bear the brunt but will socialists who caused the misery take any blame?

This is bollocks. The way to deal with state dependency is to make work worhwhile, even if it's unskilled, and to direct education at skills that are in demand.
Most western governments keep pay rates at rock-bottom levels for the lesser skilled and unskilled, just to keep their figures looking healthy. Like inflation figures and growth figures.
All they have to do is allow a constant stream of unskilled immigration, and the job's done.
If there wasn't a surplus of unskilled labour, employers would compete for workers, and unemployment would be miniscule.

[mistermack]

Seth, it's quite clear that you come out with this crap just to get a reaction.
My reaction is to feel a bit sorry for you.
Trolling is not difficult or clever. Just a bit sad.

[HomerJay]

Every single failure of capitalism and free markets can be directly linked to government attempting to pick winners and losers in the marketplace as a part of a social engineering agenda, or corruption in government that allows the use of force and fraud without punishment. Every single one.

The British government decided not to intervene in the irish potato famine because they took the view that the market would provide, it didn't and 1 million people died.

[MarkS]

(I apologise for my ignorance, i dont know how to quote other peoples posts)

Seth, surely the bust and preceding boom was caused by government(s) being influenced by, i guess you'd call them "vested interests" to deregulate? I'm afraid i must away to bed now but i'll be back.

[mistermack]

(I apologise for my ignorance, i dont know how to quote other peoples posts)

Seth, surely the bust and preceding boom was caused by government(s) being influenced by, i guess you'd call them "vested interests" to deregulate? I'm afraid i must away to bed now but i'll be back.

Just click the quote button, on the passage you want to quote, and write your response underneath.
Love the forest by the way, and it was the Cinderford lads who killed the bear !!

[Seth]

I think Seth is right. It is easy to blame Capatalism but keeping multiple generations dependant on the state handouts which are gonna dry up one day is making a bargain with the devil. Socialism is all about hiding the bills under the rug. It is deeply flawed and it is responsible for the credit crunch by having massive social programs no state can afford. There will be much suffering over the next few years and the poor will bear the brunt but will socialists who caused the misery take any blame?

This is bollocks. The way to deal with state dependency is to make work worhwhile, even if it's unskilled,

Dependent-class maunderings. Ben Franklin said that the best way to raise the poor from their condition was to make them uncomfortable in their poverty. Making work "worthwhile" doesn't reduce state dependency, it's just state supported make-work. The reason for unskilled labor to be paid less than skilled labor is to induce the unskilled to become skilled and move up the economic ladder, thereby leaving openings for new generations of unskilled entry-level laborers to enter the market.

and to direct education at skills that are in demand.

Here we agree. If government is going to spend money on trying to improve the economic lot of the poor, it should do so by giving them occupational education and trade skills. Better yet, business and industry should do so, and pay for it, since they directly benefit from an educated and skilled workforce.

But government must NOT subsidize unskilled or entry-level work, because the whole idea is for people to move relatively quickly THROUGH the unskilled labor pool into the skilled labor pool, not be mired forever in unskilled labor because they receive government subsidies to stay there.

Most western governments keep pay rates at rock-bottom levels for the lesser skilled and unskilled, just to keep their figures looking healthy. Like inflation figures and growth figures.

No, they do so to keep the workforce moving upwards and to keep new unskilled job openings available for the constant stream of young workers who have no experience and need to find an entry-level job to begin building their work skills and history.

Every time the minimum wage is increased in response to bleeding-heart liberals, young men, particularly young BLACK men, lose their jobs and have greater difficulty getting entry-level work. The reason is obvious: if an employer is forced to pay a minimum wage far above what a minimum wage, entry-level worker is worth to him, he's not going to hire them, he's going to hire older, more experienced and more reliable workers who don't have to be trained, and there's a surfeit of those sort of employees out there.

All they have to do is allow a constant stream of unskilled immigration, and the job's done.

Most jobs require more than basic working skills.

If there wasn't a surplus of unskilled labour, employers would compete for workers, and unemployment would be miniscule.

Indeed. And the quality of workers would suffer. It's an observed fact that when the economy is on fire and unemployment falls below about 5 percent, employers, particularly low-wage employers, have great difficulty finding qualified workers who are willing to do the work as required. Fast food is one of the first segments of the economy that's hit by this dearth of qualified, dedicated employees. When times are good, service at fast food restaurants sucks big time, because the only people they can get to work for them are pimply-faced high school kids with bad entitlement-mentality attitudes and no work ethic, and you're just fucked if you want a cheeseburger your way. You're likely to end up with lugies and chew in your burger if you complain.

And then there's the jobs that most American's won't do, like tending orchards and picking vegetables, which drives the illegal immigration influx.

The key is to balance the workforce to keep enough people unemployed (about 5 percent) that there is constantly a pool of qualified but unemployed people for whom employers can compete, while leaving a relatively free market for skilled employees who may shop their skills to whichever employer is willing to pay them the most.

It's a delicate balance not amenable to simplistic answers, I'm afraid.

[Seth]

(I apologise for my ignorance, i dont know how to quote other peoples posts)

Seth, surely the bust and preceding boom was caused by government(s) being influenced by, i guess you'd call them "vested interests" to deregulate? I'm afraid i must away to bed now but i'll be back.

There's all kinds of "deregulation." Unfortunately, what was deregulated in the housing bubble, and in fact was unregulated, was the behavior of the mortgage industry. Had government done it's job, using the laws it already had and which still exist, to regulate the mortgage market to prevent force and fraud, the whole housing bubble/collapse would never have happened.

But instead, government meddled in the housing market in order to try to achieve social engineering goals, largely at the behest of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who abused the Community Reinvestment Act to coerce banks into making toxic loans, and the result was entirely predictable. The banks, faced with tons of toxic paper, invented "credit default swaps" and began "securitizing" mortgages and bundling them as investment securities without any oversight or regulation by the FTC. When the whole house of cards collapsed when people began defaulting on their unaffordable "liar loans," the government, instead of protecting the homeowners, protected the overseas investors who bought the toxic investments, and most of the TARP money went directly overseas.

Thus, deregulating to take away government's authority and ability to social engineer and pick economic winners and losers is appropriate, and the economy flourishes when government gets out of the way in that regard.

But this does NOT mean that anyone with a brain is suggesting TOTAL deregulation. Police power enforcement of laws to prevent force and fraud are always necessary and appropriate. Redistributionist schemes like I mentioned above, are not, and are what caused the economic meltdown to occur.

[mistermack]

Seth, just to prove you're not a troll, can you say what country is a model for your economic wisdom? There must be one, if it's so wonderful.