Are the Conservatives that bad?

Well, a general climate of moderate regulation and companies accepting that moderate regulation is good and necessary is better than it coming down to "DO WHAT WE SAY OR WE LEAVE" because that's too unstable. A lot like how creeping change is better than a cycle of oppression then revolution.

Other countries in Europe of similar size, wealth and history to us are perfectly capable of taking a sensible approach to this stuff, why can't we?

"The state's interests are more naturally aligned with the well-being of the people within that state." is just a statement unjustified by evidence. Do you think that the control that the state has over the money supply right now has been used for the well-being of ordinary people? Obviously not and what we actually see is that the money supply is manipulated to benefit the banks and the richest in society at the expense of ordinary people. We also monetary expansion just to produce booms that politicians hope will win them elections. We see this tendency of governments that have control of the money supply throughout history to devalue it against the wishes of ordinary people for the purposes of giving those in power more purchasing power. Your faith in the state doesn't really fit well with your other comments on how those in power are corrupt either.

By the rich I usually mean anyone who is asset-wealthy and doesn't have to work for a living as such. It's about how you're set up for the future rather than how much money you have or what you do per se.

No, because the value of wages is lower than it would be in a totally uncoercive market, because workers are hamstrung in the negotiation by what is essentially their need to have a place to sleep and food on the table by the end of the week.

Obnoxious bastards, surely they must want to work at that price as like everyone else they are always free to cash in Daddy's trust fund or sell one of their houses if they want...

It really isn't my idea of a free and equitable transaction.

I don't think, like Marx did, that all profit is due to the spread between the true value of labour and the market value of labour. Innovation is also something that creates wealth, either on the cost reduction side or the persuading people to buy your shiny new stuff side. and that does emanate from the people who set up companies.

Problem is people like you automatically equate doing business with innovation. But many business activities are not innovative at all, imagine a property developer, they're able to use lobbying power and the political situation around housing to get markets rigged in their favour without any innovation whatsoever.



I know, which is why I wouldn't want it to get that far, but guess what, it will end up happening if the "we should just give all our money to the rich and trust them to do the right thing because they're soooo smart" brigade get their way, because it's unsustainable.

The turmoil would be temporary by the way, because a small British business would grow to meet the demand and for a while at least they would be keeping every penny of their profits on British soil through tax, jobs, investment, whatever. Not forever, but that sort of churn in the market is literally what capitalism is supposed to involve and what is supposed to drive innovation. It doesn't mean protect the big business we have now at all costs because we're desperate and dependent on their money. The problem is if we allow them too much power and influence they will make it so such economic dependence is ever more the case.



Explain why. It is increasingly true that returns on speculative activity are more profitable, at least until the bubble pops, than returns on productive and innovative activity.

Of course not all business is innovative, but it is true that the vast majority of innovation comes directly from the profit motive and the desire to make money.

Have you engaged with the benefits system at all? It's not a lifestyle choice, apart from it being a completely miserable existence it's literally not enough money to live on (people are growing reliant on charity to help them eat).

.

Think you'll find it is a lifestyle choice. I live in a poor area and the quantity of people on benefits because they wouldn't earn more elsewhere is shameful. The welfare state is meant to be a safety net, it's not meant to be pleasant, merely adequate. Yes it sounds harsh, but the only way social mobility in this country will return to respectable levels is if people are forced back into the labour market.

It's tough love but as long as people are given enough money to ensure they do not fall into poverty it will be better in the long run for themselves in society. They will actually have an incentive to better themselves. It's a paradox, but a cosy welfare state actually worsens the plight of the working class.

You say social mobility means pushing people into the labour market, well, firstly, I'm afraid there aren't enough jobs for everyone (there never have been, and it looks economically impossible to me), and secondly, if you think you can still meaningfully rise from the bottom to the top in a company through hard work, as our parents could, you've got another think coming.

You say the welfare state needs to be adequate not pleasant, well, for the unemployed it's not even adequate. I believe we've cracked a million people now reliant on charity from food banks to survive. I guess that's a "lifestyle choice" too?

If it's all so great, why don't you give up your job? (I've never had an answer to that particular question funnily enough!)

Well, I highly doubt whether you've asked them about their motivations, you're just judging them aren't you?

In any case, insofar as they do "choose" benefits over a job, that's because the jobs are so poorly paid and insecure they're not worth it. Let's force companies to provide jobs that actually raise people up and help them out of poverty rather than pushing everyone down to the lowest common denominator because then the "job creators" have to spend less on labour costs.

You do realise the vast, vast majority of those receiving benefits actually do work, don't you? The state's topping up their poverty wages so they can survive: another hand-out to the companies who would be up **** creek if they paid so little their employees couldn't eat and that was that. This is particularly true if you include housing benefit, which is the same hand-out, only to private landlords rather than companies (they're another one of the Tories' client groups).

It's definitely not unemployment or in-work benefits, it's family benefits that are a little bit of a gravy train. You'll probably observe that if these people are "scrounging" a bit, they have large families.

You say social mobility means pushing people into the labour market, well, firstly, I'm afraid there aren't enough jobs for everyone (there never have been, and it looks economically impossible to me), and secondly, if you think you can still meaningfully rise from the bottom to the top in a company through hard work, as our parents could, you've got another think coming.

You say the welfare state needs to be adequate not pleasant, well, for the unemployed it's not even adequate. I believe we've cracked a million people now reliant on charity from food banks to survive. I guess that's a "lifestyle choice" too?

If it's all so great, why don't you give up your job? (I've never had an answer to that particular question funnily enough!)

You say the welfare state needs to be adequate not pleasant, well, for the unemployed it's not even adequate.

To have so many using foodbanks in such a developed country is depressing. However I wonder how many who use foodbanks actually need to, and are not just going there because there's free food on offer. That has to be taken into consideration.

I never once said it was great, I said the welfare system is abused massively. If benefits for some families are not enough to pay for basic needs then they should be increased, I'm no monster. But living on the welfare state HAS to be inferior to working otherwise why the hell would anyone want a job.

Because the welfare system isn't so great and it's not meant to be so great...At what point did anyone suggest the benefits system was 'all so great'?

Well is it all one big gravy train or isn't it? Make your mind up, can't have it both ways at once.

There's a few things that can be done about this. Lower immigration (ie pull out of the EU) to ensure that the working class faces less competition for jobs from European immigrants (no slight against immigrants, they aren't to blame, horrendous Labour Immigration policies are). That would at least improve wages and increase the opportunity cost of relying on welfare.

As for social mobility, it's undoubtedly still possible to work your way up through the company with hard work (the reason this isn't witnessed is because the young have been indoctrinated to avoid rugged individualism and therefore have lower self-belief). I do agree with you to some extent that this isn't as easy as a few decades ago. The main blame has to be attributed to the proliferation of degrees; university education should only be for certain things, people shouldn't fall into it after sixth form.

I'm unemployed and depend on the welfare state and its certainly adequate. I have a lot more money now than I did when I was a student.

Yeah it's prob ok if you actually get the money, main problem is sanctions and the instability that causes. Assuming you are not being disingenuous and you're single (JSA+HB only), rent, pay all your own bills, don't rely on anyone else, use no savings etc.

Well the main trick is to not get sanctioned. It's pretty difficult to get sanctioned if you do the things you're required to do and keep the service centre updated with your work status. Plus you get a chance to appeal when threatened with sanctions and afaik you only get sanctioned when the appeal fails and it takes weeks (in my case it was a couple of months) to process, giving plenty of time to cut back on spending in preparation. The DWP don't just sanction people for the fun of it. That may be the attitude of some people who work at the job centre but the appeals process means that a human with the capacity to see the rules in more than black and white reviews your case. If after that you get sanctioned then it's probably because you didn't follow the agreement all job seekers sign.

As an aside, the new Universal Credit system works pretty well, particularly with zero hour contracts. The Conservatives may get slated by Labour for these things but when you experience both at the same time they do make sense.

I may not enjoy being unemployed (as a matter of pride and it's really boring) but I am grateful that I live in a country which has such a generous benefits system. If I lived in the USA (for example) I would probably be bankrupt and homeless due to student loans.

Yes, I understand that banks can create money i.e. debt out of nothing and have legal privileges to do so. In a free system, they would not have these privileges. I don't see how relevant these criticisms you are making are as you aren't going against anything I said however you are still making the same mistake of saying banks being able to create money is bad but the government being able to is good.

How does this deficit stuff matter? I never said that the government should never run a deficit. I said that without control of the money supply that they couldn't devalue the currency to pay for things. No mention of deficits or surpluses.


No, that's clearly not true. Where did you get this nonsense from?