Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Should the LIBOR fiddlers go to jail?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 9:31 AM

After posting it, I knew someone would ask that Wink ....the article was that for the first time, 50% of the population are nett recipients and the figures showed 25% are nett contributors. I will have a look for it.

Last Modified By mikehit at 12 Feb 2013 - 9:58 AM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
12 Feb 2013 - 9:31 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 10:06 AM

OPPS! Big booboo on my part. The article was not just benefits but the state expenses in general: welfare, health service, education etc. The top 20% of households make a nett contribution of >25% of earnings, the next quintile make a nett conritbution of 10%, everyone else receives more services than they pay into the system.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-n...
http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/allister-heath/fiscal-crisis-won-t-go-away-unt...

Quote: It was Frederic Bastiat, the French economist, who said that “the state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102289 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 1:07 PM


Quote: Do you have any evidence to suggest pre-Blair Labour was any better? I am puzzled why you continually point to Tory and (as you see them) proto-Tory parties as guilty in this and not just accept even the socialist parties are just as guitly. Wilson was one of the most self-serving power seeking PMs we ever had.

I don't see why you should be puzzled because I also think the Wilson and other Labour governments were Tory led i.e. controlled by the Tory establishment. There has been no real Labour government since perhaps Clement Attlee (a rare breed of politician who actually seemed to care about the nation as a whole). Of course, much of pre-Blair Labour was not any better.
Wilson assisted the US in their blood-drenched enforcement of the "Free Market" in Indonesia by supporting the murderous dictator Suharto.
Thatcher absolutely embraced the Free Market and in doing so, endorsed Reagan's dogma in forcefully imposing the Neo-Con madness in Latin America, causing hundreds and thousands of deaths (largely due to Thatcher's pal Pinochet).


Quote: Not a pretty attitude from the electorate, either.
So what is the best we can expect from 'the system'?

I agree that the electorate are not blameless but that's why you need better education so that people are more fully aware of facts and consequences. I believe that without the constant capitalist-centred propaganda from the media the electorate would, by and large, vote for better political parties and their leaders.

Quote: Where does that figure come from Mike? Would love to know how it is calculated.

So would I!Wink

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014137 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 1:13 PM


Quote: The article was not just benefits but the state expenses in general: welfare, health service, education etc. The top 20% of households make a nett contribution of >25% of earnings, the next quintile make a nett conritbution of 10%, everyone else receives more services than they pay into the system.

So its not really fixed groups then, you might start off making a nett contribution but have kids, retire, fall sick, be made redundant and you start to benefit...

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 1:41 PM


Quote: I don't see why you should be puzzled because I also think the Wilson and other Labour governments were Tory led

I was 'puzzled' because you constantly find ways of blaming the Tories and outwardly seem to refuse to accept that Labour parties are as tainted as Tories. And any Labour policies you don't like are....well...really Tory policies. Which seems a wonderful catch-all because no matter where you turn you can blame the Tories for anything you don't like. Of course, you are also being rather patronising to past Labour governments (Wilson and Callaghan) as seemingly unable to forge their own path and that Wilson's failure to face up to the unions in the 60s as being Tory led. Weird.



Quote: So its not really fixed groups then, you might start off making a nett contribution but have kids, retire, fall sick, be made redundant and you start to benefit...

That is a fair summation, and that is the purpose of the welfare state: a safety net for people who may be OK now but suffer some change in circumstance that means they need support. It does not avoid the fact that 'the system' is supported by a significant minority of the population, and my point originally was that it is so easy to criticise 'the wealthy ' as a blanket group and ignore the contribution they do make.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 2:03 PM


Quote: I believe that without the constant capitalist-centred propaganda from the media the electorate would, by and large, vote for better political parties and their leaders

Hmm - if "I" write it its "Balanced Information", if "you" write it its "Propaganda" - the problem being that there is no truly unbiased view of the world - we all see it through our own set of filters

Maybe it would better to educate people to have an analytical and sceptical mind so that they can make up their own minds by filtering all sources of data and deciding what is the best interpretation of fact themsleves?

Last Modified By brian1208 at 12 Feb 2013 - 2:03 PM
mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 2:15 PM

gcarth: you refer to 'capitalist centred propaganda' so i would be interested to know whether you see the problem being captialism, or do you see the problem being the low-regulated capitalist system that had developed over the last 20 years?

thewilliam
12 Feb 2013 - 2:26 PM

What do our socialist friends think of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102289 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 6:11 PM


Quote: Gcarth: you refer to 'capitalist centred propaganda' so i would be interested to know whether you see the problem being captialism, or do you see the problem being the low-regulated capitalist system that had developed over the last 20 years?

Well, I definitely see the low-regulated capitalist system as a major problem - disaster is really how I prefer to think of it: but I think capitalism of any kind is not necessarily the best system. However, human nature is such that all systems of government and economic and financial controls seem to be corrupted and abused by certain powerful individuals. In the case of the "Free Market" and its essential dogma of deregulation, it was always inevitable that corruption, abuse and plain stupidity were going to be in the ascendency.
Communism has of course failed terribly in the old USSR and in China etc.
However, Russia is not exactly thriving under the Free Market imposed by the US when Communism crumbled - you only thrive in Russia if you are one of the super-rich who exploited the Free Market at the expense of ordinary people.


Quote: What do our socialist friends think of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?

I'm not technically a socialist (I'm Green) but I certainly don't think much of the North Korean Administration. I certainly don't think North Korea is democratic either! They seem a bit scary...but perhaps no less scary than the nutjobs in the US Administration.

thewilliam
12 Feb 2013 - 6:22 PM

We saw communism at its worst in the old "Democratic Republic" of Germany because it was basically a gigantic prison camp. They actually shot citizens who tried to escape!

One friend who'd lived in the old East Germant told me that "work" was somewhere that people went rather than something that people did. No wonder so many of their industries collapsed after re-unification.

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102289 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 6:27 PM


Quote: ...the low-regulated capitalist system that had developed over the last 20 years?

Of course the low-regulated of Free Market system has actually been developing for much longer than 20 years - probably since around the 1970's if not well before that.
Later, under Reagan and Thatcher - both influenced by silly people like Milton Friedman - we saw the Free Market's true face - red in tooth and claw - the survival of the fittest (i.e. the most ruthless and unprincipled).

mikehit
mikehit  56454 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 6:38 PM


Quote: Later, under Reagan and Thatcher - both influenced by silly people like Milton Friedman - we saw the Free Market's true face - red in tooth and claw - the survival of the fittest (i.e. the most ruthless and unprincipled).

Yep - the apologists for both capitalism and socialst/communist states always fail to take human nature into account to the point where both can end up with a ruling oligarchy on a power-grab. The counterpoint is finding the right level of regulation that does not stifle development. If you look at the leaps forward in quality of life between the 50s and 70s I can imagine a lot worse than going back to that slow-but-steady growth rather than the pell-mell bonanza we enjoyed in the 80: and despite all the criticisms I think most people did enjoy it, but it was just unsustainable with the inevitable power discrepancies.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 6:48 PM


Quote: Russia - - - - - - under the Free Market imposed by the US

an interesting statement, can you show evidence to back it up (the "not exactly thriving" is of course not open to dispute, but they weren't under comunism either)

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102289 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 8:54 PM


Quote: an interesting statement, can you show evidence to back it up (the "not exactly thriving" is of course not open to dispute, but they weren't under comunism either)

Yes it is an interesting statement and it is interesting that so many intelligent 'well-read' individuals (including journalists) and so-called 'opinion-leaders' are unaware of this evidence.
My evidence is taken from the book by Naomi Klein: "The Shock Doctrine", Chapter 11 page 218. Basically, Gorbachev had to accept the Free Market or the US would not do business with t him or the Russian economy.

This book is essential reading in my opinion and should be read in all schools to counter much of the mainstream propaganda that we get brainwashed with daily.

Oh, and returning to the question of the so-called democracies in Korea, Soviet Russia etc. etc.; no one can be anything but appalled by these sham democracies but let's not be smug about our own so-called democracy. Our democracy may be better than in many nations but it is far from a true democracy - for example we don't get the people we really want to vote for because the media spin ensures that only certain questions are permitted. Sad

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110266 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
12 Feb 2013 - 10:22 PM

Thanks for the reference, interesting reading, as is her CV and biography to date.

When ever I read input from someone new to me I like to get a feel for their particular bias (we all have one, that's human nature, the important thing is to be aware of it in any thinking)

She is clearly anti-capitalist and anti-corporate in her stance (which doesn't detract from her arguments but does make me look for her supporting evidence for her passionately held belief)s.

One more piece of information on the pile but certainly not enough to draw any conclusion from (I'm one of those analytical sceptics I called for earlier in the thread. I know how my emotions sway my reason so very boringly try to base my arguments on facts as far as possible)

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.