Subject:
|
Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:27:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1179 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
>
> > That is not true. This country (and yours, too) has tons of businesses
> > which require people who are capable. If the government stopped "making"
> > opportunties business would take over that racket
>
> Nice theory and something that got debated a lot over here the last
> decade or so. The verdict seems to be that if the Government does nothing
> then businesses often don't either, even when it looks like it should be
> in their interests to do so. There've been things like - in South Wales
> there are practically entire towns that depended on the coal industry.
> Over the last 15 years the coal industry died because people started
> finding other fuels. So you had towns with massive unemployment and
> where most of the people were skilled in - well, coal mining.
> Would you have preferred those entire communities get destroyed rather than
> have the Government spend some money on getting new businesses to start up
> in those towns?
Was this theory ever put to the test? Or was the verdict decided by a
committee of experts? Over here, businesses finance employees' education
frequently. Is it different in England? Those businesses must have a
strange motive. Coal mining died in the last 15 years? In this country I
think it died a number of years sooner. Also the steel industry died in a
great many cities here, and plenty of other old fashioned industries (such
as car fabrication). If you have been paying attention to the world around
you for the past 80 years you would notice that things change. People
should prepare for the future (and I don't mean the upcoming weekend).
Perhaps 20 or 40 years ago people could expect to do the same work for the
rest of their working life - they can't expect that now, and if they don't
prepare for a career change (or location change), it is an irrepsonsible
act. If they expect big brother to rescue them because of their lack of
planning their own fate, I find that very irresponsible.
> > > But presumably the fact that you believe it's worth while to move means
> > > you are getting a lot more money, even after tax - so what's the problem?
> > > Besides wouldn't it be so much nicer if people didn't have to make those
> > > sacrifices in the first place?
> >
> >
> > Nice. I would love to get paid a lot of money without going to college
> > and without leaving my family's area, but GET REAL.
>
> Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote <grin> I never mentioned
> teenagers leaving home to go to college. I'm talking about settled
> people, people with families - who for some reason have been made redundant
> or perhaps the company they worked for crashed etc.
I will rephrase then... I would like to have the same high paying job
forever and never need to move, but get real. If you are well located, you
may get away with never moving. If you are located somewhere where there
aren't many alternatives, I hope you notice it before times change.
> > Right. People could choose to do nothing. I believe if people choose • to
> > do nothing, that they should be responsible for their own inaction, and if
> > they can't pay their bills, tough. If they can't survive, tough. Why
> > should I work and earn my living AND support others who choose not to? • WHY?
> > One good reason please, and I will shut up.
>
> Your missing the point that often people do nothing, NOT because they
> want to do nothing, but because they can't see anything that they can
> do. In those cases giving them a bit of help can and does encourage or
> enable them to do something and get better lives for themselves.
Maybe I did miss the point. I forgot what this debate was about. But to
combat that, I say people who have no aspirations can be categorized with
those who choose to do nothing. Perhaps its harsh, but I feel that if
people are forced to look at life themselves and find a way to make it
managable for themselves, they can do so without intervention. If they know
someone else will do it for them (at the expense of yet another) then they
probably won't find a way by themsleves.
> > It was a choice, work or lose something you don't fully own. As it
> > should be. Do you think, since you wanted to be lazy (or didn't want to
> > make sacrifices), that someone else should pay your bills? You could have
> > chosen to live in a cheaper house, you know? You could sell your car, • which
> > you really don't need if you don't want to work.
>
> Hey - you're reading stuff into my posting that I didn't write!
> Firstly, I never said I had a car at the time.
> On the main occasion I was thinking about, I didn't. (And even if you
> do sell something, that's only a temporary solution anyway until the money
> you got from selling it runs out). Secondly I did not want to be lazy.
> I wanted to work. However, I was settled in my house, with a partner, when
> the funding that was paying for my work as a researcher ran out due to
> Government cuts - and a contract that I'd thought would be renewed didn't.
> Because I lived in a poor-ish area there weren't any other jobs going
> locally. It's only thanks to the fact that the UK Government does spend
> a fair amount on regional aid that that sort of thing doesn't happen more
> often. It's far better if you can get work without having to uproot
> from the community you live in.
OK.
> > I believe you that the situation in Europe might really suck as far as
> > job openings go. Perhaps if the governments didn't stifle the businesses • in
> > those countries, the number of job openings would grow? I hear the
> > Socialist Democratic Party is losing popularity in Sweden. Thats good.
>
> Ha ha - sorry to disappoint you, but the job situation is a LOT better in
> the UK now, under a Labour Government than it was at the time I was talking
> about, when a Conservative Government was in power. And don't forget that,
> though Sweden does have it's problems, the Social Democratic Party
> there gave the country one of the highest standards of living in Europe
> continuously for about 50 years. That's no mean achievement.
How long has your Labour party been in power? How long does it take the
actions of a specific government in power to have an affect on an entire
nation's economy and job situation? How much does the world's economy as a
whole affect Britain's economy? How can I be disappointed by the fact that
the Labour Party is currently in power, other than the damage they will
incur while they hold that power? And, perhaps Sweden's high rating can be
attributed as much to excellent foreign policy skills and the citizens
themselves as to the predominant party's agenda.
> > Speaking for myself, I agree with all of those. I do feel a
> > responsibility to respect, not hurt and be honest with other people. I • also
> > feel an emotional reward when I help others. I don't feel an emotional
> > reward when I get robbed. Instead, I feel pain and anger. And Chris • said,
> > it is theft. I think of it as theft, too, because the government chooses • to
> > waste and spend money in a different way than I would if I were trying to
> > help someone. By looking at the people who benefit from my tax money
> > (either people who don't need help, or people who are unwilling to help
> > themselves) I get pissed off in a heartbeat. Seeing those who work hard,
> > and still receive no help makes me even angrier. If I had a choice it • would
> > be one thing, but since I don't, I feel robbed.
>
> There's really two issues there. One is that I think we'd both agree that
> any Government is going to make mistakes. Given how much money Governments
> have to spend it would be pretty amazing if there weren't some things they
> did that you didn't agree with. There's lots of areas where I think • Governments
> have mucked up, but that's fairly minor compared to the good that they are
> able to do through spending money they've got through tax.
I agree to an extent, but I think there are many things my own government
takes under its wing that could be put in safer hands.
> Secondly, get the impression what you're implying is that you regard all
> the money your employer pays you as yours. Perhaps that's where we differ.
> I recognise that I am only able to do the work I can because of all the
> infrastructure of the society/country/community in which I live. I • therefore
> feel that some of what I've notionally been paid really belongs to the
> Government/community anyway, so I don't have any problems about having
> to give it up.
Maybe its hereditary. In the UK, the people have been paying taxes in
one form or another since, well, a long time ago. In the US, there was no
Federal income tax until 1907. For US people, the level of taxation has
risen from none to a comparable level of taxation in the UK in less than a
centruy, in only a few generations. Maybe for you it is steady and you
don't mind, since it is so strongly engrained, but to us it is a big
snowball that just gets bigger - it is scary, and there is no end in sight
for this snowballing effect. But thats not the point. I choose to live
here, it is not that bad yet, in fact it is still very good, but the
policies being pushed are not good, and will harm the people of this
country. Ideally, I would like to not pay an income tax, but pay fees for
the government services that I use (and not pay for those I don't use). At
the very least, I would like it if I could have faith that the money I pay
into Social Security now will be there when its my time to retrive it before
I pay even more tax for other things I won't be able to take advantage of.
> > Honestly, I think your government is screwed beyond repair, and so you
> > just depend on the United States, for now. Don't know what you will do • when
> > we become undependable...
>
> Uh? Whatever gives you the impression that the UK depends in any way
> on the USA? Sorry, but that's not something you can argue about there
> you are simply plain wrong on that.
We see the world very differently. Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are. I
think these two countries do depend on each other. I think the very strong
US economy does have a powerful effect on the UK's emerging economy (much
more so than the Labour Party's recent rise in power and popularity). I do
not think the US' booming economy can be attributed to the current leader or
predominant party, but to technology and policies implemented years ago that
have had time to become effective. I think when the US economy breaks down,
the UK will feel the consequences, too. I would dare to say, and you are
free to feel differently, that the US has the upper hand in that
relationship.
> The UK and the USA are allies, and their Governments cooperate a lot
> on areas like defence. But there's no one-sided dependency there.
> And as far as the UK Government is concerned, well Tony Blair's Labour
> Government has been in power for two years and is incredibly popular.
> All the economic signs coming out are that Britain is doing very well under
> them. (Though I'm not trying to gloat - around the world there are
> left wing Governments and right-wing Governments doing well, and other
> Governments of both left and right doing badly.)
> > nice site - I agree (I am allowed to say that in this group?) Lego • aren't
> > just kiddies toys!
>
> Thanks - I'm glad we can agree on one thing :) I've actually just
> today updated my Lego pages so there's a fair bit more stuff there now.
> (Had the new files sitting on my computer the last week but hadn't got • round
> to uploading them). Sadly no piccies of models yet as I've had little time
> to build anything the past few months, but I'm planning a large combined
> monorail/normal train station soon.
>
> Simon
> http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What happened?
|
| (I haven't responded to some points because this posting was getting ridiculously long :) ) (...) You're still putting the emphasis on 'choose' whereas I'm trying to point out that sometimes it's not a question of choice as unsufficient knowledge or (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) Nice theory and something that got debated a lot over here the last decade or so. The verdict seems to be that if the Government does nothing then businesses often don't either, even when it looks like it should be in their interests to do so. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
