economic situation is dire

[lapal_fan]

Agree completely CVByrne, I always cast a slightly envious glance towards our Scandinavian friends, socially speaking.

 

They have great education, a good job system in place, transport and public owned things are run efficiently (if only!) and apart from the weather, they've got everything over us.  Women get given 12-18 month maternity and men get 65 working days which must be taken off before the child is 5.  It creates a togetherness.

 

But people over here can't/don't want to understand increasing taxation etc.

 

If done correctly, I wouldn't mind giving 50% of my wages towards helping others etc, but as it is, I wouldn't survive.

[CVByrne]

What is key over there though is the value for money they get with the Public Services, taxation is higher but people feel like it's money well spent. I know back home in Ireland vast swaythes of public money was squandered, the port tunnel went 120% over budget. I mean WTF!!! 

 

Accountability is key, politicians in Ireland were corrupt beyond belief. They're not much better over here. 

 

If in Denmark they say we will increase tax by 1% and it will pay for x,y,z the trust the people have that that's where the money will go and those things will be delivered is significantly higher than the trust we place on the same here in the British Isles. 

[tonyh29]

 

 

I thought Socialism was all about (or should be) collectivism, fairness, equality and caring?

Socialism is about making things equally shit for everybody.

Which might be marginally better than making things better for the few and shitty for the majority under the banner of 'all in it together'.

I'm no socialist, far from it but however misguided their policies may be at least there is some honesty and good intentions behind them.

 

Have you ever read Animal Farm ?

[Risso]

I've seen the video....

[snowychap]

But who peddles this notion?

It's a pretty basic part of the political 'consensus'.

It's the basis of the 'hardworking people' trope that is the essence of most popular (populist) political discourse.

Hard work will only get you so far.

But hard work may not even take you 'that far'.

Hard work is useless unless the work that you are doing has a point.

Thus hard work becomes very important when it's to do with fulfilling potential for those that have that or hard work seems to be very important when people are talking about the impact of the input of labour.

[CVByrne]

 

But who peddles this notion?

It's a pretty basic part of the political 'consensus'.

It's the basis of the 'hardworking people' trope that is the essence of most popular (populist) political discourse.

Hard work will only get you so far.

But hard work may not even take you 'that far'.

Hard work is useless unless the work that you are doing has a point.

Thus hard work becomes very important when it's to do with fulfilling potential for those that have that or hard work seems to be very important when people are talking about the impact of the input of labour.

 

 

Look only a fraction of the work people do "has a point". The rest of the jobs (and almost the majority) that are there are, are essentially pointless.

 

Footballers are utterly pointless yet you post on a forum about a football club. 

 

All kinds of entertainment in fact is pointless. 

 

So what level of pointless is discussing a sport, which in itself is pointless, on an internet forum.

 

I would like to be provided with a list please of jobs that "serve a point" ie Farmers, coal miners, steel workers, teachers, nurses (you can't mention doctors as their income is in a higher bracket), does the military serve a point? They do get paid to kill people, but since the people they kill are foreign enemies, does that a serve "a point"

 

I need a full list. It will really help. Cheers. 

 

Also can you grade the jobs by how much of a point they serve, oh wait sorry. Everyone is equal regardless, well as long as their job serves "a point".

[snowychap]

Look only a fraction of the work people do "has a point".

Indeed. And it doesn't really matter whether the view is 'at the top' or 'at the bottom'.

The former is more acute that the latter.

Edited December 12, 2014 by snowychap

[CVByrne]

10 workers work hard. They can each make one car per month. They produce 120 cars per year.

 

Mr Ford comes along. He splits the 10 workers out into how skilled they are at making specific parts of the car, he gets them to focus on that part of the process instead and passes it onto the next worker when their job is done. 

 

Each worker's productivity is doubled now they focus on but one part of the process. So the 10 workers produce 240 cars per year. 

 

Ford car company employ 181,000 people. Henry Ford is evil because he became wealthy. 

[snowychap]

10 workers work hard. They can each make one car per month. They produce 120 cars per year.

 

Mr Ford comes along. He splits the 10 workers out into how skilled they are at making specific parts of the car, he gets them to focus on that part of the process instead and passes it onto the next worker when their job is done. 

 

Each worker's productivity is doubled now they focus on but one part of the process. So the 10 workers produce 240 cars per year. 

 

Ford car company employ 181,000 people. Henry Ford is evil because he became wealthy.

What the **** hell are you trying to say?

Please say it. Rather than try to chuck out some kind of parable.

Edited December 12, 2014 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Each worker's productivity is doubled now they focus on but one part of the process. So the 10 workers produce 240 cars per year.

Is it? How so? Would you give us details?

[CVByrne]

 

Look only a fraction of the work people do "has a point".

Indeed. And it doesn't really matter whether the view is 'at the top' or 'at the bottom'.

The former is more acute that the latter.

 

 

You miss the fact more people are in employ because of the jobs that "have no point" than could ever be the case if we all focussed on mere making of goods. 

 

10 workers work hard. They can each make one car per month. They produce 120 cars per year.

 

Mr Ford comes along. He splits the 10 workers out into how skilled they are at making specific parts of the car, he gets them to focus on that part of the process instead and passes it onto the next worker when their job is done. 

 

Each worker's productivity is doubled now they focus on but one part of the process. So the 10 workers produce 240 cars per year. 

 

Ford car company employ 181,000 people. Henry Ford is evil because he became wealthy. 

 

Henry Ford is a superior to his peers because his mind alone created something which collectively benefited thousands. The fact he got his just rewards does not make him evil or wrong or the enemy of anyone. If he had no material gain he would not have been incentivised to do what he did, to innovate and then how many people would never have had jobs?? 

[chrisp65]

10 workers work hard. They can each make one car per month. They produce 120 cars per year.

 

Mr Ford comes along. He splits the 10 workers out into how skilled they are at making specific parts of the car, he gets them to focus on that part of the process instead and passes it onto the next worker when their job is done. 

 

Each worker's productivity is doubled now they focus on but one part of the process. So the 10 workers produce 240 cars per year. 

 

Ford car company employ 181,000 people. Henry Ford is evil because he became wealthy. 

 

I don't think that makes him evil.

 

I think the Ford Probe and the slopey sad looking Granada were crimes against design, but evil would be a bit strong.

 

Edited December 12, 2014 by chrisp65

[CVByrne]

 

Each worker's productivity is doubled now they focus on but one part of the process. So the 10 workers produce 240 cars per year.

Is it? How so? Would you give us details?

 

 

I don't have to make every part of the car. I refine my skills to make just one part and the next person makes the next part. Ford called it the production line. It made cars affordable which spurred a growth in the sector which produced thousands of jobs, which put demand on steel and vulcanised rubber which itself fuelled more jobs growth. 

 

But here is me explaining how one mans captatilist idea generated jobs and happiness for thousands. He got rich from it so is inherantly evil. 

[snowychap]

You miss the fact more people are in employ because of the jobs that "have no point" than could ever be the case if we all focussed on mere making of goods.

What fact?

It's finger in the air stuff.

 

Henry Ford is a superior to his peers because his mind alone created something which collectively benefited thousands. The fact he got his just rewards does not make him evil or wrong or the enemy of anyone. If he had no material gain he would not have been incentivised to do what he did, to innovate and then how many people would never have had jobs??

There's not much to say against this other than, "Wow."

Wow, just wow and wow.

Henry Ford is our measure, even still?

Good luck.

[snowychap]

He got rich from it so is inherantly evil.

Nonsense.

Inherently, it would mean little.

[CVByrne]

The only thing I care about in the context of modern times is if one of the workers was smarter than Mr Ford. I want no (or as few) barriers to letting him be better than Mr Ford as possible. If Bob and Bill have competing ideas, Bob's is better but Bills Dad is richer, Bills idea wins out. That's what I want to stop.

 

How rich one becomes from the idea, that's for the people who never had an idea to bemoan, to envy. 

[CVByrne]

Makes me smile you haven't managed a single repost of any substance. 

[snowychap]

The only thing I care about in the context of modern times is if one of the workers was smarter than Mr Ford.

There you have a number of problems. You just don't get it.

First off, whether the 'smarter' thing happens (which it largely won't); and then whether the much smarter thing will be allowed, and then...

Makes me smile you haven't managed a single repost of any substance. 

Oh does it?

[snowychap]

Edit:

Edited December 12, 2014 by snowychap

[snowychap]

Edit: On a personal note then I don't much disagree with your comments about scandinavian taxation/public spending outlooks.

Edited December 12, 2014 by snowychap