Greece crisis: Europe on edge over snap election

[Hastings gull]

Poverty in rural Africa is increasing faster than the population. In Nigeria, one of Africa's strongest economies, poverty has risen to 61% (100 million people living on less than $1 a day) - meanwhile it has the most billionaires on the continent, with 13... this is typical of capitalism, excessive reward for the lucky minority while the rest of the population relatively suffers in servitude or poverty.

Capitalism is a great system for creating wealth, like we can observe in China like you say, but it is possibly the worst at using and distributing it. Inequality has never been so high, which is absolutely unacceptable in Western nations who have more than enough wealth for everyone to earn a living wage. The solution is simple, distribute the wealth fairly - this isn't especially difficult to put into practice or even a lot to ask - it would benefit every aspect of society, including the economy and technological innovation, but the wealthy ruling classes are proactive in preventing this from happening.

The theory is simple, not the solution. It would be extremely difficult to put in place, because those millions who have worked hard for their comfortable lifestyle, would quite rightly be most angered at having to give it up. Why should they? I am not talking about the mega rich here, just your ordinary wealthy middle class punter, including doubtless many on here, who would not consider themselves to be "the ruling classes" as you so often put it. Then when you have distributed it fairly, whatever that means, how are you going to ensure that it remains "fair" - human beings are resourceful and determined when it comes to working for themselves and their families, so how do you stop inequality rising again, which it surely will do. Some will save money, and others will go straight down the pub, to put it simply. And what sort of mindset would you be creating in those who have wealth handed to them in the name of "fair re-distribution" who have not deserved it?

 

[Hastings gull]

ALL people should live comfortable lives, not just the hard working middle classes - rather than asking them to give anything up, we should look to reward them even more for their hard work - but like you say, they are not the problem and they are certainly do not make up the wealthy ruling classes.

The wealthy ruling classes are the 1%, such as the richest 1,000 people in Britain who increased their personal wealth £65 billion in 2013 alone, or the 1% of people globally who own HALF of the worlds wealth. Billionaires who will make more money in a minute than most of us do in a year. The first step is to stop anyone getting so excessively and unnecessarily wealthy and redistribute that wealth back to society.

Inequality will always exist, some degree of inequality is a good thing because not everyone wants to work as hard as one another - but this glaring and almost unquantifiable excessive inequality is absolute insanity and is a result of this broken system.

Wow -a large measure of agreement! Please no more figures about the 1% -I think we have seen this so many times now! Ok -there is merit in what you say, and I am sure that many of us are staggered to read of millions paid in bonuses/shares etc. But the question still remains -and as yet the only answer is more slogans -how are you going to do it, and then insure that people do not become mega rich in the future? When folk work hard and then go from wealthy to mega rich - are they then doing something wrong? is the system then broken, as you so often claim?

 

[Machiavelli]

I thank you for your time. I am not an economist, so really should not comment. Is it really that simple a watershed -after 1979, it all changed.

The seventies more generally constituted the shift, rather than 1979 specifically, and this is generally regarded to be a shift from Keynesian economics to neoliberalism.

 

[attila]

Interesting. Don't know why the bankers' apologists are worried about Syriza, they're hardly left wing , their economic vision is positively Keynesian....Happy New Year

 

[beorhthelm]

The wealthy ruling classes are the 1%, such as the richest 1,000 people in Britain who increased their personal wealth £65 billion in 2013 alone,

you keep trotting this line out, and keep refusing to acknowledge the background - that this increase is due to foreigners basing themselves in the UK. as asked before, do you believe the UK should tax their wealth held in foreign lands - should we impose a tax on say the Indian holdings of the Hinduja or Mittal families? your ignoring this question just highlights how you fail to understand the dpeth and complexities, how you fail to recognise the difference between wealth and income, while interchangeing as if they mean the same thing. poverty measures income, not wealth.

 

[Guerrero]

I thought that your first part was excellent but then, in my humble opinion, you spoil your argument with that very simplistic conclusion. To be fair, you do say it is simplistic. I presume socialism equates to the highlighted part? Your final sentence -enough what for everybody? Lets say it is food you mean -doubtless you, like I and most others on here, will have eaten more than we need, but are we at fault for this? Is it that simple then to say that because we have gorged ourselves this Xmas, others go hungry.

It was meant to be simplistic,and yes ANYBODY who is taking more than they need while ANYBODY ELSE has less than they need is contributing to the problems of hunger and poverty in the world.

This is how bad things are.
I am a teacher in a private school.Just before Christmas I asked a class of 12/13 year olds, a year seven PSHE class. Who would give up their phone if it could save the life of a child in an African village.
Not one.....not even one.
Of course once we had debated the subject a few said that they would.
I try to take what I need,not what I want.
Socialism to me is looking after the poor,elderly and infirm in our society and beyond.
Capitalism is looking after number one and fluck the rest of the world.
Still simplistic I know,but sometimes things are better kept simple.

 

[jakarta]

It was meant to be simplistic,and yes ANYBODY who is taking more than they need while ANYBODY ELSE has less than they need is contributing to the problems of hunger and poverty in the world.

This is how bad things are.
I am a teacher in a private school.Just before Christmas I asked a class of 12/13 year olds, a year seven PSHE class. Who would give up their phone if it could save the life of a child in an African village.
Not one.....not even one.
Of course once we had debated the subject a few said that they would.
I try to take what I need,not what I want.
Socialism to me is looking after the poor,elderly and infirm in our society and beyond.
Capitalism is looking after number one and fluck the rest of the world.
Still simplistic I know,but sometimes things are better kept simple.

You should be at least disciplined if not sacked for bringing such personal political convictions into your workplace.

It proves that a lot of the Education 'profession' are not in the least professional in how they approach their work.

My wife is an ex Head Teacher and I am a Part-Time University Lecturer (when I am not doing my full-time Consultancy work) and I utterly despise this sort of nonsense from so-called Teachers.

 

[Hastings gull]

It was meant to be simplistic,and yes ANYBODY who is taking more than they need while ANYBODY ELSE has less than they need is contributing to the problems of hunger and poverty in the world.

This is how bad things are.
I am a teacher in a private school.Just before Christmas I asked a class of 12/13 year olds, a year seven PSHE class. Who would give up their phone if it could save the life of a child in an African village.
Not one.....not even one.
Of course once we had debated the subject a few said that they would.
I try to take what I need,not what I want.
Socialism to me is looking after the poor,elderly and infirm in our society and beyond.
Capitalism is looking after number one and fluck the rest of the world.
Still simplistic I know,but sometimes things are better kept simple.

Thank you for your reply. I assume you have seen the irony of you working in a private school and telling us all about how we should only have what we need and not what we want, and not look after number 1. I worked for 30 years in comprehensives, teaching less fortunate members of society than those you come into contact with, do not share your political views and also believe in looking after the poor, elderly and infirm. In fact my mother , aged 87 and with Alzheimers, lives in an annexe attached to our house. The difference between our careers shows all too clearly the dangers of simplistic statements, such as you indulge in. Things are most certainly not best kept simple, because life is not that simple!
And I also think that you are on rather dangerous territory asking children such a ridiculous question - it is hardly either or, is it?

 

[Hastings gull]

So finally you agree. So let's discuss this - what shall we do about it?

I don't finally agree, my friend -this is rather arrogant wording on your part -that is rather simplistic. I do acknowledge that your last posts have dealt rather more with the realities of life, and that has struck a chord. As to what can be done - well, it is New Year's Eve and even old gits get stuck into the booze. I wish you every success, and good fortune for 2015, and lets hope that the new manager can bring us the success we all crave.

 

[OGH's Libido]

I asked a class of 12/13 year olds, a year seven PSHE class. Who would give up their phone if it could save the life of a child in an African village.
Not one.....not even one.

Your students understand that you don't generate wealth by destroying it. Giving up a phone makes you worse off, but is that 'right' because we are now more equal?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Germany's post war success is built on undeserved hand outs after wrecking Europe and causing millions of innocent deaths so you might have a point.

Maybe the UK will now have similar success after Iraq?

 

[pastafarian]

So let's discuss this - what shall we do about it?

Nothing!

No one ever (and yes that includes you) has ever provided a workable alternative that is an improvement to the current system.

 

[pastafarian]

Maybe the UK will now have similar success after Iraq?

Did Iraq destroy whole cities in the UK? Are they going to spend billions on rebuilding our infrastructure......i must have missed something.

 

[Hastings gull]

So finally you agree. So let's discuss this - what shall we do about it?

Well, it is morning now and even an old git like me managed to stay up to 00.45 with only falling asleep once. I trust everyone reading this had an enjoyable night and may I take this opportunity to wish you all every success at a stadium near you for 2015. On another post, I have said that I do not finally agree, as you put it, and the difficulties of doing anything in a democratic world have been highlighted by other posts. I have always been referring to British citizens but you have been misleading us by lumping everyone together , including foreigners basing themselves in London.
As I often state, I am not an economist, but would the fact that there are billionaires in the UK directly affect other's income? It is probably a sign of inequality but does eg Tony Bloom's millions mean that I and you are necessarily less wealthy? Where do you draw the line as well -when do you say -you have got enough, we are now taking the rest of your money? To whom would you give it -would an unexpected handout for someone or an organisation, make them less cavalier with money; somehow I doubt that. And if we start in a brave new world, how would you prevent some folk from again getting wealthier than others? It is fact of life that some folk will work harder than others. To be fair, Mustafa does accept that this will happen, but until anyone comes up with a viable solution, then presumably the old adage applies:_"if it ain't broken, don't fix it". I have asked these questions repeatedly and as yet, not one viable answer, other than vague slogans, has been given. It is easy to criticise what can appear to be glaring examples of inequality -but much harder to find an acceptable solution, that ties in with the values of a democratic society.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Technology is driving much of the inequality we have seen recently, not so much immigration which has always been around. It is removing the need for repetitive roles (white or blue collar) and paying those who can leverage technology even more. It requires people to invest in their and their kids education. And of course tax has been the way to redistribute for those left behind

 

[Triggaaar]

This is a dangerous and incredibly ignorant assumption. Some of the greatest minds that have ever lived have been involved with political and economic theory for centuries. There are literally countless workable alternatives, most of which have never even been applied.

No it's not ignorant, it's accurate. You say that a workable alternative has been applied - then why is the world not sorted?

Can you tell us how you think we can take the resources and wealth off of the world's richest people, and distribute it fairly to everyone?

 

[Triggaaar]

Many workable alternatives have been applied throughout history.

I disagree. Could you give one example of wealth being equally distributed around the world?

How do I think we can fairly distribute wealth? The same way we sustain any kind of order - through law and legislation.

Not just law and legislation, but also the policing of that law and legislation. I'm sure many of us can accept the idea of it, but it's the policing of it that's impractical. Do you accept that?

 

[Hastings gull]

This is a dangerous and incredibly ignorant assumption. Some of the greatest minds that have ever lived have been involved with political and economic theory for centuries. There are literally countless workable alternatives, most of which have never even been applied. I personally like the idea of social anarchism, direct democracy and a resource based economy.

That, my friend, is the problem. Great minds immerse themselves in theories -the rest of us are in this world, and whilst we might see merit in the theory, are realistic enough, that, when you take human beings into account with all their various views and ambitions, the theory will just not work, however well-intentioned the theorist may be.



Well it is broken, so let's fix it. Like I said above, there are countless alternative solutions - people like yourselves who fear change, or aren't open to new ideas, need to start having this debate if we are to move forward as a species. As things stand, things are going to continue to get considerably worse for all of us - if you're too old to care, think of the world your children/grandchildren will be living in.

I think you will find for the majority of ordinary folk in this country, realistic enough to appreciate "the university of life", that the system is not broken. Just when I was pleasantly surprised that you seemed to be coming down to earth, we hear all about the countless solutions, though never the nitty gritty. Sadly, your arrogance continues to dominate your thinking - I am not in the least bit closed to new ideas, but as I have written before, I would need to be persuaded that a new idea has been thoroughly thought through, and is not just the usual vague slogan. I posed the question in my last post as to how change would work, and as ever, there is no real response which actually gets down to it, just the usual posturings as to we should think about what sort of world we would want. I would certainly not want my grand-daughter to live in anything which involved social anarchy, and I am sure that I can safely say that I am in the majority on that.

 

[Hastings gull]

Technology is driving much of the inequality we have seen recently, not so much immigration which has always been around. It is removing the need for repetitive roles (white or blue collar) and paying those who can leverage technology even more. It requires people to invest in their and their kids education. And of course tax has been the way to redistribute for those left behind

I fully accept that this could be my inability to understand, but could you explain what you mean, particularly the bit about education, as I can't fathom it out.

 

[Hastings gull]

You call me arrogant, but yet you seem to have assigned yourself as spokesperson for the majority of the population. From my experience, the majority of the population do believe the system is broken - and this is frequently reflected in polls too.

But I'm more interested by your closing comment - why would you not want your granddaughter to live in anything which involved social anarchy?

No I most certainly do not regard myself as such -this is just your convenient interpretation. If the system was as broken as you suggest we would have seen overwhelming evidence of social cohesion breaking down and a far greater swing to radical political parties. Yes, UKIP are doing better than ever before, but this is largely due to fears about what is perceived as excessive levels of immigration. I have never seen a poll asking folk about whether they think the system is broken, and in any case it is far too vague a question. Broken for whom? Relative wealth for the majority, brought about by capitalism, warts and all, has not convinced the vast majority that the system has broken.

I looked again at social anarchsim, which would be only correct to do, an saw this on Wikipedia. Try going into the street and asking the bulk of the population what they think of "Social anarchism is generally considered an umbrella term that includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology." and when you get home, then you might realise what I say when I speak for the majority on this particular issue.

So it relies on social equality does it? But we have agreed that this will never be the case, as different people will have different priorities -some will work harder than others, as you acknowledged. People will always need incentives to better themselves and their families, and do not want to be "equal". I see also that this wondrous system would convert private property into common use -that would be a real wow, wouldn't it. About 70% of folk in this country own their home or are paying a mortgage for it, and they would really want to transfer it into the common use, wouldn't they? In order to do this, force and threats would clearly be needed, as the Communists used when collectivising the former privately-owned farms in East Germany in 1948.

Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism[1]) is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid.[2] Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality.[2]
[/B]Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[3] Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism is often used as a term interchangeably with libertarian socialism,[1] left-libertarianism,[4] or left-anarchism.[5] The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarc