Subject:
|
Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 02:14:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1221 times
|
| |
|
|
(I haven't responded to some points because this posting was getting
ridiculously long :) )
> > > 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.
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 inability to do anything different without a bit of help to get started.
But since you want a reason, how about these three:
1. Because you might one day end up in the same situation. Could happen
a few ways, but try - your company goes bust, you get disabled in an
accident and then discover that because of some complicated legal technicality
your insurance company gets out of having to pay you anything.
2. People who believe they have no hope of making a decent living
legally will often turn to crime instead.
And locking people up in prison costs
a LOT more (out of your taxes) than giving them a bit of help or support
at the start to show them how to get a decent job would have done.
3. People that you (presumably) regard as scroungers often have children.
Do you want their children to be effectively punished for what
you believe parents are doing wrong, by being brought up in poverty?
> > > 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.
The Labour Party has been in power 2 years. You are correct to point out
that there are many factors that can contribute to economic success
(including the record of the previous Government). However, you make
the comment
'other than the damage they will incur while they hold that power?'
without providing any justification. Are you just assuming, without
any evidence, that because the Labour Party is left wing, it will be
doing harm? What I see is that we had the Conservatives in power for
19 years (a long time, partly because of Mrs. Thatcher's popularity in
the 1980's and partly because the Labour Party spent most of that time
fighting amongst itself). During that time, we had economic ups and downs.
The Conservatives put in some good reforms in terms of moving the UK
to a more market-based economy, but their refusal to accept much
Government intervention lead to a huge increase in poverty, crime,
more environmental damage, etc. And most importantly to a loss of
opportunities for self-improvement to a large minority of the population.
Those problems are now steadily being put right by Labour, without
(as far as I can see) any economic damage being done in the process.
> > 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.
<snip>
Yeah you've probably got a point there. I think we do have a different
way of seeing things. I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that
the culture in most of Europe (at least for economic matters) is based much
more on the community as
a whole, whereas in America it's based more on the individual. And yes,
we've had taxes for several hundred years. The fact that our countries
are smaller probably also makes our Governments seem a lot less remote
than the federal USA Government.
> > > 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.
OK - that sounds a lot better :) A mutual dependence I would go along
with though I'd still question your description of the UK economy as
'emerging'. The US economy has a significant effect on all other economies,
but that's largely because population-wise the USA is easily the biggest
of the main industrialised countries. It would be strange if the UK, with
its population of around 60 million (I'm not sure of the exact figure),
had the same affect on the USA, with
its population of well over 200 million, as vice versa!
The point I was trying to make by commenting on the Labour Party's popularity
and apparent economic success is that left wing Governments are just
as capable of doing well economically as right wing Governments. That's not
so much aimed at you but at all the people in this discussion who seem
to be saying that left wing policies are strange or - as someone said
- 'wacko'. By European standards, even the American Democrat party is VERY
right-wing on both economic and social issues. That doesn't seem to stop
much of Europe from enjoying prosperity, stability, etc. Left wing politics
DO work.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) Well that certainly explains why the US and Britain diverged so much after WW II, with the US stagnating and Britain going on to happy shiny people ville. Or why the PRC with so many many people and so much land is so much more advanced in its (...) (25 years ago, 19-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What happened?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
