Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why do the right want to return us to the 1800s? watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    under this current travesty of a system, taxes as we see now.
    I'm assuming that you're a student with access to the Universty Library?

    If so. May I suggest you get this book out and have a flick through it.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Shift...n+global+shift

    It opened my eyes up to how the global economy works.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    But if you undermined MNCs, you'd end up damaging tax revenues?

    Are you wanting to go back to a Merchantile sytem of the economy?
    no i want socialism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'm assuming that you're a student with access to the Universty Library?

    If so. May I suggest you get this book out and have a flick through it.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Shift...n+global+shift

    It opened my eyes up to how the global economy works.
    no thankyou, capitalist economic textbooks refuse to look at socialism from outside a narrow viewpoint, socialism is a separate system not a kind of capitalism. that book may describe how the economy works now but refuses to acknowledge socialism is not a high tax variant of capitalism
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    no i want socialism.
    Then live on a commune somewhere. You have that choice. But if you choose to do that to live in a socialist environment will you please take the moral high gorund and not expect a capitalists financed welfare system to prop you up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    no thankyou, capitalist economic textbooks refuse to look at socialism from outside a narrow viewpoint, socialism is a separate system not a kind of capitalism. that book may describe how the economy works now but refuses to acknowledge socialism is not a high tax variant of capitalism
    Actually it looks at it from both ways. But of course, you have a blinkered approach to life and wouldn't dare consider expanding your mind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Actually it looks at it from both ways. But of course, you have a blinkered approach to life and wouldn't dare consider expanding your mind.
    or i dont want to read some BS from another right wing writer with a vested interest in capitalism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, I would generally regard myself as right-wing but I support the idea of the national minimum wage (although, vehemently oppose a living wage as that just accentuates higher standards of living rather than reducing them), because I think a benchmark of employment pay is needed.

    On the employment legislation front, the overall point about that is that some enforcements could be drastically reduced. Take maternity pay for example. The fact employers have the risk of taking on a woman who could become pregnant is directly leading to gender discrimination in the workplace. The stats back that up with around 18% of top boardrooms being filled by women of some of the UK's largest companies. I'm not against maternity, but if we left it up to employers to declare on a contract whether or not they would pay it (because some would if it means they get better applicants), then that would increase gender equality in the workplace and more women would be hired in top jobs. Other legislation like health and safety, sick pay and redundancy all sounds good on paper, but the problem is it's preventing large numbers of small businesses from taking on school-leavers and people in general. They are scared that if they take on an individual and two years down the line the business goes through a rough patch, then laying off that person will result in a costly tribunal and in the long run, will cost more to their functioning.

    I think what we need is a cost-benefit analysis of this type of legislation and ultimately a knife to the unnecessary bits of employment law which really do act as a drag on society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    or i dont want to read some BS from another right wing writer with a vested interest in capitalism
    So you have a closed mind then. That's fine. Many people do. That's why we have a benefit system to support them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So you have a closed mind then. That's fine. Many people do. That's why we have a benefit system to support them.
    no having considered the advantages and disadvantages of both systems it is clear to me capitalism is wrong and socialism is the way forward.

    you arrogant right wingers annoy me so very much.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackJack)
    First of all, I would generally regard myself as right-wing but I support the idea of the national minimum wage (although, vehemently oppose a living wage as that just accentuates higher standards of living rather than reducing them), because I think a benchmark of employment pay is needed.

    On the employment legislation front, the overall point about that is that some enforcements could be drastically reduced. Take maternity pay for example. The fact employers have the risk of taking on a woman who could become pregnant is directly leading to gender discrimination in the workplace. The stats back that up with around 18% of top boardrooms being filled by women of some of the UK's largest companies. I'm not against maternity, but if we left it up to employers to declare on a contract whether or not they would pay it (because some would if it means they get better applicants), then that would increase gender equality in the workplace and more women would be hired in top jobs. Other legislation like health and safety, sick pay and redundancy all sounds good on paper, but the problem is it's preventing large numbers of small businesses from taking on school-leavers and people in general. They are scared that if they take on an individual and two years down the line the business goes through a rough patch, then laying off that person will result in a costly tribunal and in the long run, will cost more to their functioning.

    I think what we need is a cost-benefit analysis of this type of legislation and ultimately a knife to the unnecessary bits of employment law which really do act as a drag on society.
    I had this discussion with my Girlfriend the other day. Neither of us agrees with affirmative discrimination.

    Her take on it was quite simple. Women have a choice to have Children. Having children holds a woman back in the work place and therefore there will always be less women on the.

    However, by forcing companies to have a 50:50 split of men and women on the board, you've just discriminated against men who haven't taken time off work to have a baby.

    I personally believe in the best person for the job irrespective of gender, colour, religion etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    no having considered the advantages and disadvantages of both systems it is clear to me capitalism is wrong and socialism is the way forward.

    you arrogant right wingers annoy me so very much.
    Then you have that choice. But please don't get upset with the people who have to pay for your socialist dream.

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class ".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    and you still havent answered me, just admit you cant.
    You haven't asked a question.

    I've given my opinion on MNCs, they're mostly a force for good. Though I do prefer localism to globalism, but the latter isn't bad.

    You can't stop MNCs from emerging and I believe in a free market economy, they have to respond to the markets and consumers or face losing competitiveness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Then you have that choice. But please don't get upset with the people who have to pay for your socialist dream.

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class ".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
    Fantastic post; it brought a tear to my eye.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Then you have that choice. But please don't get upset with the people who have to pay for your socialist dream.

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class ".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

    1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

    2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

    3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

    4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

    5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
    that experiment is a load of tosh, done by a "teacher" who clearly doesnt understand socialism what it is or how it works/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    You haven't asked a question.

    I've given my opinion on MNCs, they're mostly a force for good. Though I do prefer localism to globalism, but the latter isn't bad.

    You can't stop MNCs from emerging and I believe in a free market economy, they have to respond to the markets and consumers or face losing competitiveness.
    you havent answered me about wanting to pay exceptionally low wages with no NMW laws to bolster profits.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Fantastic post; it brought a tear to my eye.
    I'd never advocate a truly capitalist society. As with most things it has to be somehwere in the middle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    you havent answered me about wanting to pay exceptionally low wages with no NMW laws to bolster profits.
    I don't want people to be underpaid where they cease to survive. However, I don't think it's fair to dictate to businesses what they ought to do, when responsible ones will pay enough to their employees. I know I would as I have a conscience. However, with the big companies, there might be problems through the layers of management. You need to be more specific, like which roles etc.? But in general, I would be less inclined to get rid of the NMW now because people need to get jobs. Although I really hate the government for deterring SMEs from starting up due to too much bureaucracy and hurdles they need to cross, and for setting an arbitrary wage on how much you should be paid, then there may be little initiative to raise it above that level if they know the employees have just enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'd never advocate a truly capitalist society. As with most things it has to be somehwere in the middle.
    I can't see it happening now anyway, it would be too complex to get rid of the mixed economy. But I like the idea of compassionate capitalism and local capitalism.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by alex5455)
    well the ussr was totalitarian, pretty much from the start, however it was extremely successful up until after ww2 when the capitalist western states decided it was time to force it to fail
    it was unsuccessful with the (possible) exception of during world war two.

    The alternative to the consequences you have put forward is that corporations will move here and the net result would be a general increase in living standards, especially if red tape is cut...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by alex5455)
    that experiment is a load of tosh, done by a "teacher" who clearly doesnt understand socialism what it is or how it works/
    socialism=high tax, high governement support and equal distribution of income as the core ideas, communism is socialism in its purest form.

    a laissez-faire approach to a free-market economy also wouldn't work due to market failure and nformation asymmetry.

    so actually slightly too much to the right comes out as better for the majority than slightly to the left as if you lean too far left the teacher's analogy becomes correct.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.