Inclusive capitalism?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They are scared, about FOOKIN time. Loved the bit about good capitalism and bad capitalism, I would suggest that bad capitalism comes from self regulation of anybody that earns tons of money.

I'll just throw this one in here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"To succeed is to destroy ourselves. To fail is to destroy ourselves. That is the bind we have created."

"The rich get richer: Britain's wealthiest DOUBLE their fortunes since the financial crash and are now worth £519billion"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What will they do once they have all of the money?

What happened to "we're all in this together"?

Why can those at the top only be incentivised by being given more while those at the bottom can only be incentivised by being given less?

One in ten people earns less than the living wage (about £7.85 an hour), up to one in ten are on zero-hours contracts, and the majority of people classed as living in poverty are in work. All facts.

There's no such thing as good capitalism - this is precisely what it's meant to do. But too many of us have been sold the lie that 'there is no alternative', and that joining unions to increase our bargaining power is a thing of the past. Or, of course, that various outsiders are to blame, rather than the system.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In the words of Lee Scratch Perry, "there's enough for all our needs, so what's with all the greed?"
I remember being taught at School that as technology advances then we will all work less and less, since then successive governments have moved back the date of my retirement and we are all being asked to work longer and harder for the same or less money that we were earning several years ago? Why is that? As Franny points out all the rich people are now richer than they were yet the poor are expected to take the brunt of austerity. The rich people have been proven to have the money so take it off them.

I also don't understand the logic that dictates that huge wealth is good because hugely wealthy people run businesses that create jobs etc.

This presupposes that those businesses will succeed. I'm not sure of the figures but most businesses fail. They are a bit like baby turtles: there's loads to start with but only a few make it.

On top of which the vastly wealthy appear to be rather good at avoiding tax, investing it off-shore and spending it in exotic holiday destinations so very little of that money benefits the UK at all.

On the other hand if poor people are given money (either by way of wages or benefits - it matters not) they spend it.

(Higher wages would also obviate at least some of the need for top ups from government in the form of tax credits or housing benefit or whatever. These are, effectively, a subsidy to employers and almost an incentive to pay a low wage!)

It doesn't really matter what the poor spend it on. It could be spent on paying off debt or food or clothes or beer and fags or flatscreen TVs or DIY or decorators or a new car or the geegees ... Whatever. Leave it up to them. Obviously some of it would be squandered but what the hell... Just live with it. None of us expects to be told what to spend our money on so why should poor people?

Whatever it gets spent on generates trade for shops or businesses of some kind. They all, or nearly all, will pay VAT or employ people (PAYE & NI) or pay corporation tax or CGT.

All of that is real trade in a real economy generating real demand...

Demand (i.e. giving the poor more) will always find supply but supply (i.e businesses) always need to find demand and sometimes won't.

Exactly why most of us are expected to work longer hours for more weeks of the year for more years and all for less money is barmy.

There is plenty of money in this country. We are, regardless of what governments might tell us, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet with one of the largest economies and a very healthy GDP/per capita ratio. We do not have to struggle to exist like some kind of westernised Bangladesh. We can afford our NHS, a welfare state that offers a meaningful safety net and still maintain the various governmental departments that allow the country to function in a civilised fashion.

It's a choice that governments make that make things the way they are. It is not an economically prescribed only option. Things do not have to be like they are.

I see that the anti euro voice has been listened to at home and abroad, there are still claims of racism in the papers (which may or may not be real) but our government and Brussels is now saying they need to work towards prosperity for the population not austerity. Like it or not the UKIP protest vote hit the bastards smack between the eyes and they got the message loud and clear. Sadly all we will hear is words until the population of Europe follow it up with some real action/civil unrest.
Keep the momentum going now.

They'll all do the talk.....but will any of them do the walk.....of course not.

As Tony Benn (?) once said: "there's always the money to fight a war..."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A good start would be to address the law that is stacked in favour of employers and taken away so many rights that our recent ancestors shed a lot of tears for.

The unions need to address their own problems to attract the fair minded rather than the self interested.

Having the two main parties both basing their policies towards the right has created an unfair system. There is too much emphasis on a successful party rather than having a content population. There should be loyalty to the people and not loyalty to a political party.

I wish we had a referendum on whether we should have spent £30 billion on two wars in the middle east one of which was clearly illegal, eh Mr. Blair? What's more those two wars have just fuelled terrorism and made us hated by more countries than we were already.

The other argument that is clearly run out of steam is that we need to pay the heads of industry millions upon millions a year, topped up with bonuses of more millions when one after another these jokers cause catastrophic mistakes which have clearly bankrupted the world economy. They are worse than the premiership football stars, at least Rooney and co are good at their jobs.

Farm subsidies are another good one, I own about five acres of land, I am likely to lose my farm subsidy of about £30 a year because there is talk of making the minimum amount you can claim on 5 hectares. A neighbour of mine claimed £1.4m last year and bought another farm with fishing rights along the river Tamar. We are seeing people put together landholdings not seen since Victorian times. Funnily enough he used to be a banker and was sacked by Nat West with a multi million pound payout, arrogant twat.
I think that Mock linked to this Moinboit article a while ago.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Iggy wrote:

Farm subsidies are another good one, I own about five acres of land, I am likely to lose my farm subsidy of about £30 a year because there is talk of making the minimum amount you can claim on 5 hectares. A neighbour of mine claimed £1.4m last year and bought another farm with fishing rights along the river Tamar. We are seeing people put together landholdings not seen since Victorian times. Funnily enough he used to be a banker and was sacked by Nat West with a multi million pound payout, arrogant twat.
I think that Mock linked to this Moinboit article a while ago.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Another reluctant owner? I wonder if he knows as much about farming as Brent does about football.

This is clearly taking the piss and this person should get no subsidies!