[Politics] Capitalism - for better? Or worse?

[studio150]

I went to countless gigs in the 80’s when admission was £2, because they were promoting albums at £5. Musicians successfully in the game for a while, still became well off, unless robbed by a record company contract. Sickening these days to see £90 per ticket for the O2, and that’s before touts/secondary markets have inflated the price. I just don’t pay it. I feel so lucky to have experienced a golden era.

But I can’t see how that could be altered. If U2, A-Ha, A.Grande, Springsteen, set the price at £90, it’s a free world so they can.

With football, that was just a brief free phase. In all the decades up to about 1990, live football was a rare event on BBC or ITV, just England games, FA Cup finals and the odd league match.

Yep, more and more money is squeezed out of us, especially if we’re keen on something. Never before in history does it appear to pay earn a great income.

The days of all and sundry making up 2,000 watching a gig at the Dome or Suite, at an affordable price, are well and truly gone.

Gigs prices are really a reaction to the download generation, as musicians now receive far less money from streams than they used to do for royalties on physical records. Therefore for most musicians the way to generate a higher income is via touring and ticket prices.

Whether you are willing to pay £100+ for a gig really comes down to (1) can you afford it (2) How much to you like the artist (3) And does it represent value for money to you

Fortunately it is still possible to see groups at smaller venues for under £40.

I would agree however that the days of going to gigs 3 times a week is probably out of the reach for most purely on financial grounds.

 

[BLOCK F]

I went to countless gigs in the 80’s when admission was £2, because they were promoting albums at £5. Musicians successfully in the game for a while, still became well off, unless robbed by a record company contract. Sickening these days to see £90 per ticket for the O2, and that’s before touts/secondary markets have inflated the price. I just don’t pay it. I feel so lucky to have experienced a golden era.

But I can’t see how that could be altered. If U2, A-Ha, A.Grande, Springsteen, set the price at £90, it’s a free world so they can.

With football, that was just a brief free phase. In all the decades up to about 1990, live football was a rare event on BBC or ITV, just England games, FA Cup finals and the odd league match.

Yep, more and more money is squeezed out of us, especially if we’re keen on something. Never before in history does it appear to pay earn a great income.

The days of all and sundry making up 2,000 watching a gig at the Dome or Suite, at an affordable price, are well and truly gone.

Hi Weststander; yes I can understand what you are saying re earning a decent income, especially for those who enjoy going to a number of 'live experiences' for example. Not so bad for the likes of me, who doesn't indulge. I like a nice car and good hotels, but other than that, we live quite frugally , I reckon. Now, mention the offspring, and that is where quite a lot of my dosh has gone/goes!
Still, if I've got enough, I will help them all I can, 'cos they work hard, but are not on great incomes. I just hope they return the compliment when they choose my care home!

 

[Hastings gull]

its what ever you want it to be. for me its just an idiom on NSC that reflects the informality

Exactly. Just do what you prefer as others have similar unique characteristics and ignore the clever dicks of this world.

 

[knocky1]

My mate saw Rag n Bone man at Wembley for £40 on Saturday.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

" It's the same the whole world over, its the poor what gets the blame. Its the rich what gets the pleasure. Aint it all a bloody shame"

PS. Who ever said it was because you worked harder?
Rubbish!

 

[blue-shifted]

that would be a better model for many companies, and many do have large share option packages for employees. also natural monopolies such as utilities under non-profit structures raising cash through bonds rather than equity would be better.



what Oxfam and the others campaigning against inequality fail to note is much of this wealth is a product of capitialism, its the consequence of valuing shares on a market restricted supply and applying that to all shares available. Bezos holds billions in shares of the company he built and much of the value is tied up in those shares. if you distributed them or sold those shares, the value would reduce. its not like land or physical assets that could be shared among the population. other wealth in the bank is being used by others in the economy, loaned to invest in business large and small. if you got rid of capitalism the value of shares and assets would disappear, we'd all be poorer.

Or if you redistributed all the assets of Bezos (and redistributed more generally nationally and around the world), then more people would have money to spend, stimulating economies and generating virtuous circles, rather than sitting with a tiny handful, who couldn't spend their wealth if they had a thousand lifetimes to do so.

 

[blue-shifted]

I think we only like capitalism in this part of the world because we've been the beneficiaries of it.

However, Britain, has clearly got, fat, lazy and stupid and we've been been living on borrowed time for a while. Emerging countries, particularly in the far east work harder, get better school scores etc and in the coming years will take more and more of our wealth. As our comparative wealth declines, we'll get ourselves into more and more debt as we don't want to face some hard truths. We'll make increasingly bad political decisions which will accelerate our decline. People will bemoan the death of capitalism. Of course, it hasn't died, it's just gone somewhere else.

 

[FatSuperman]

I believe larger companies should be more of a co-operative set up so employees benefit more from the performance, not just investors.

I genuinely thought you were making a joke about breweries sharing their product with the staff.

The problem that I see with your approach, is that it would require careful management to ensure the conscientious people doing a good job are rewarded appropriately. Unfortunately, most of the managers are terrible managers and don't bother with actually looking after their teams. They are too busy trying to climb the pole, stabbing at the people above them.

Just remember folks, even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.

 

[Weststander]

Hi Weststander; yes I can understand what you are saying re earning a decent income, especially for those who enjoy going to a number of 'live experiences' for example. Not so bad for the likes of me, who doesn't indulge. I like a nice car and good hotels, but other than that, we live quite frugally , I reckon. Now, mention the offspring, and that is where quite a lot of my dosh has gone/goes!
Still, if I've got enough, I will help them all I can, 'cos they work hard, but are not on great incomes. I just hope they return the compliment when they choose my care home!

Hi there, yes our kids will be costing us for many years to come, but I rarely think about it. When they start work, I kind of assume they’ll be on modest incomes ... structural changes in economic life, house prices, etc will usually mean that our gen and our parents on average got wealthier. Let’s stay healthy to keep subsidising the buggers

 

[Knocky's Nose]

I could discuss capitalism and socialism (rationally) for hours and hours, so I don't.

My thoughts are that in a capitalist society the brightest and most driven can have more of an opportunity to succeed financially. Hard work, study and determination is rewarded.

In a truly Socialist society the lazy and unambitious can be rewarded, usually at the expense of the hard working. You then get the hard working people resenting working 14 hour days to support the person who would rather stay in bed all day and do nothing.

That said, as an evolved society we have a duty of care to those who cannot look after themselves, or are unable to work for genuine reasons.

My thoughts are that capitalism is good, but only to the point before it becomes greed - or at the expense of the wellbeing of others. Like everything in life, there's a middle ground. I am not qualified to say what, or where this is mind you.

 

[vegster]

I’ve just got BT Sport for the first time as it’s free for 3 months with a new contract.
But watching the Champions League matches this week has reminded me how they were all free to air on ITV only a few years ago.
I do often feel like ‘the system’ just keeps squeezing more and more cash out of everyone, as western nations supposedly get more wealthy.
It’s like gigs.....it used to be that those who queued longest got to the front, but now unless you pay crazy money for platinum seating or standing you can’t.
Segregating audiences at concerts on racial grounds was banned in USA years ago and rightly so, but we all seem to accept segregation on wealth grounds these days.
Any more thoughts on Capitalism’s good or bad points or indeed how we could improve or alter what we have now?

Going back maybe 50 years or so capitalism worked but not so well for those at the top. There were many layers of capitalism where money could be shaved off to people in the form of wages. the whole idea of old style Tory capitalism was that money would trickle down to the various layers of employees and suppliers so everyone would benefit but those at the top would benefit slightly more.


Now days with the tax avoidance and low wage capitalist structure we have, money is siphoned very quickly up the chain and shifted to where no tax can be paid and, it does not come back !

 

[BLOCK F]

Hi there, yes our kids will be costing us for many years to come, but I rarely think about it. When they start work, I kind of assume they’ll be on modest incomes ... structural changes in economic life, house prices, etc will usually mean that our gen and our parents on average got wealthier. Let’s stay healthy to keep subsidising the buggers

And to keep out of the care home!

 

[Weststander]

I could discuss capitalism and socialism (rationally) for hours and hours, so I don't.

My thoughts are that in a capitalist society the brightest and most driven can have more of an opportunity to succeed financially. Hard work, study and determination is rewarded.

In a truly Socialist society the lazy and unambitious can be rewarded, usually at the expense of the hard working. You then get the hard working people resenting working 14 hour days to support the person who would rather stay in bed all day and do nothing.

That said, as an evolved society we have a duty of care to those who cannot look after themselves, or are unable to work for genuine reasons.

My thoughts are that capitalism is good, but only to the point before it becomes greed - or at the expense of the wellbeing of others. Like everything in life, there's a middle ground. I am not qualified to say what, or where this is mind you.

Good post. Many of us here had ‘done fairly well’ despite going to the state comp and often with zero interest/pushing in our studies from our parents. In fact, it can motivate you more to learn, pass exams, work hard and carry on learning, to become innovative.

The UK is a mixed economy, with a very large public sector. The main adjustment I’d like to see with the next government is more money going towards the NHS, recent personal experience revealed some hectic conditions in A&E and some other hospitals in the country need the capital investment we now see at the Royal Sussex. Plus a better safety net for the disabled, vulnerable, chronically ill, whilst investing in more staff to catch benefits cheats (the figures are huge, the cheats not cheeky chaps but criminals).

We’ll all have to pay a few more % in tax to fund this, not just the rich and companies. Politicians simply won’t come clean about that.

 

[Weststander]

Going back maybe 50 years or so capitalism worked but not so well for those at the top. There were many layers of capitalism where money could be shaved off to people in the form of wages. the whole idea of old style Tory capitalism was that money would trickle down to the various layers of employees and suppliers so everyone would benefit but those at the top would benefit slightly more.


Now days with the tax avoidance and low wage capitalist structure we have, money is siphoned very quickly up the chain and shifted to where no tax can be paid and, it does not come back !

Not disagreeing with your overall message, but as I work in the tax field, I’d make the following obseervations.

The wealthy and very wealthy people I know do pay their full whack of taxes. It pays to know how the full system works. Socialists often highlight 19% corporation tax, but that’s just stage one in tax collection. Once the shareholders draw dividends, they then pay personal tax on top of that up to 38.1%.

The vast majority of people at all income levels pay their taxes in full.

The black hole comes from the others:
1. Multinationals such as Starbucks abusing the system.
2. Tax cheats from the taxi driver, all the way to people carrying out huge VAT frauds. Not victimless crimes, as many on NSC seem to think. The total figure is huge, robbing money from us.
3. Celebs and other wealthy individuals, immorally using ‘schemes’ to avoid tax. Often via offshore arrangements.

 

[Bry Nylon]

My mate saw Rag n Bone man at Wembley for £40 on Saturday.

You have to give me more than that.

 

[Nixonator]

Works up until a point, balance is tipped now though.

Needs a shakeup but no idea what that could/should be.

We are not far off the unregulatable, dystopian mega-corps imagined by works of fiction.

 

[Blue3]

what Oxfam and the others campaigning against inequality fail to note is much of this wealth is a product of capitialism, its the consequence of valuing shares on a market restricted supply and applying that to all shares available. Bezos holds billions in shares of the company he built and much of the value is tied up in those shares. if you distributed them or sold those shares, the value would reduce. its not like land or physical assets that could be shared among the population. other wealth in the bank is being used by others in the economy, loaned to invest in business large and small. if you got rid of capitalism the value of shares and assets would disappear, we'd all be poorer.[/QUOTE

I agree that Capitalisum as it is creates wealth and it creates mega wealth for some but it does not create wealth for all and there are 3.8 billion individuals who need some of that wealth to be shared out its in that respect that Capitalisum has failed and sadly I see no reason it will change until it is replace with somthing else.

 

[Binney on acid]

Reminds me of the graffiti on the gents toilet wall of Noble's wine bar, New road, that I viewed in the mid 70's.
What's the difference between Capitalism and communism?
Capitalism is where man exploits man.
Communism is the complete opposite.
Sums it up nicely!

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

Not disagreeing with your overall message, but as I work in the tax field, I’d make the following obseervations.

The wealthy and very wealthy people I know do pay their full whack of taxes. It pays to know how the full system works. Socialists often highlight 19% corporation tax, but that’s just stage one in tax collection. Once the shareholders draw dividends, they then pay personal tax on top of that up to 38.1%.

The vast majority of people at all income levels pay their taxes in full.

The black hole comes from the others:
1. Multinationals such as Starbucks abusing the system.
2. Tax cheats from the taxi driver, all the way to people carrying out huge VAT frauds. Not victimless crimes, as many on NSC seem to think. The total figure is huge, robbing money from us.
3. Celebs and other wealthy individuals, immorally using ‘schemes’ to avoid tax. Often via offshore arrangements.

Please forgive my ignorance on the matter, but how is it that multinationals such as Starbucks can get away with such large scale tax avoidance?

 

[Weststander]

Please forgive my ignorance on the matter, but how is it that multinationals such as Starbucks can get away with such large scale tax avoidance?

They 'base' their global HQ in a very low corporate tax regime such as Ireland, Luxembourg or The Netherlands, then charge a massive 'Franchise Fee; annually to each of their UK, German and French subsidiaries for example. Obliterating the profits and corporation tax bill in the latter mentioned countries. This isn't a guess or a myth, it's openly disclosed.