escort ordu kıbrıs escort escort izmit escort bodrum escort rize escort konya escort kırklareli escort van halkalı escort escort erzurum escort sivas escort samsun escort tokat altinrehbereskisehir.com konyachad.com sakaryaehliyet.com tiktaktrabzon.com escortlarkibris.net canakkalesondaj.com kayseriyelek.com buderuskonya.com The Politics of Unemployment - UK Cigar Forums

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Politics of Unemployment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Politics of Unemployment

    So an earlier thread started off discussing how we BOTL's are dealing with the 'Great Recession', as its been termed, and it led to something of a debate about the proper response to it, as well as how various political bodies could be blamed for its occurrence.

    I can only speak for my side of the pond, but I should note that my prejudices are encapsulated by one of favorite philosopher, who said:

    No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
    ?Adam Smith

    Rousseau had similar sentiments, and so the idea, it could be said, is not without a wide audience. I grew up in the time of Reagan, which also meant the time of Thatcher, and it has been my understanding, given the sweep of things, that the trickle-down theory is theoretically attractive, but practically ineffective. The U.S. has the greatest division of wealthy and poor since the 1920's, and much of that has to do with the consistent deregulation and reduction in taxation over the last forty years.

    I concur that there is no feasible way to continue on as we are now, and I do not believe that all cuts are evil, but it strikes me that there has to be a balance of collective services requiring a collective buy-in, and I think that no society that has a majority of people who are poor or struggling will, as Adam Smith put it, flourish. Hence, even Smith argued for public schooling, and some general welfare functions of the state. The question is to what level and what effect. My understanding of giving more to those who have more is that they don't tend to spend it in ways that help the poor or middle class; the decline of the middle class over the very span that describes the increase in deregulation suggests that capitalists will spend their time increasing capital wherever that will happen, meaning that manufacturing will go over seas and capital will stay in their pockets as muc as not.

    Ultimately, though, I think there is an ethical question within Smith's point, and he was already unto this when he began his Wealth of Nations by intending to find the greatest rise in happiness and flourishing for all. That question, in my mind, is what we owe one another as human beings who share a space, and what do we leave to the clearly erratic and uncaring workings of the economy? Once we decide that, we can make cuts in terms of what we want to preserve as well as what is most effective.

    I think that most people over here want a sort of magic to take place: make cuts, but don't let them affect me (not my school, not my social security, not my roads, etc., and never increase my taxes).

    So while I'm in agreement with the idea that excessive debt is ridiculous, it's not clear to me that it's always ridiculous, as your Keynes argued, depending on the situation. On the other hand, structural changes should be made in consideration of the fact that the less unfortunate, as Smith also argued, are not able to weather them like the monied class can.

    Ok,, stepping down from my soap box. Anyone else want to take it?
    Last edited by Soulmanure; 18-10-2010, 02:40 PM.

  • #2
    I sir, applaud you. Very well said.
    The running gears of a bopmachine

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Soulmanure View Post
      So an earlier thread started off discussing how we BOTL's are dealing with the 'Great Recession', as its been termed, and it led to something of a debate about the proper response to it, as well as how various political bodies could be blamed for its occurrence.

      I can only speak for my side of the pond, but I should note that my prejudices are encapsulated by one of favorite philosopher, who said:

      No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
      ?Adam Smith

      Rousseau had similar sentiments, and so the idea, it could be said, is not without a wide audience. I grew up in the time of Reagan, which also meant the time of Thatcher, and it has been my understanding, given the sweep of things, that the trickle-down theory is theoretically attractive, but practically ineffective. The U.S. has the greatest division of wealthy and poor since the 1920's, and much of that has to do with the consistent deregulation and reduction in taxation over the last forty years.

      I concur that there is no feasible way to continue on as we are now, and I do not believe that all cuts are evil, but it strikes me that there has to be a balance of collective services requiring a collective buy-in, and I think that no society that has a majority of people who are poor or struggling will, as Adam Smith put it, flourish. Hence, even Smith argued for public schooling, and some general welfare functions of the state. The question is to what level and what effect. My understanding of giving more to those who have more is that they don't tend to spend it in ways that help the poor or middle class; the decline of the middle class over the very span that describes the increase in deregulation suggests that capitalists will spend their time increasing capital wherever that will happen, meaning that manufacturing will go over seas and capital will stay in their pockets as muc as not.

      Ultimately, though, I think there is an ethical question within Smith's point, and he was already unto this when he began his Wealth of Nations by intending to find the greatest rise in happiness and flourishing for all. That question, in my mind, is what we owe one another as human beings who share a space, and what do we leave to the clearly erratic and uncaring workings of the economy? Once we decide that, we can make cuts in terms of what we want to preserve as well as what is most effective.

      I think that most people over here want a sort of magic to take place: make cuts, but don't let them affect me (not my school, not my social security, not my roads, etc., and never increase my taxes).

      So while I'm in agreement with the idea that excessive debt is ridiculous, it's not clear to me that it's always ridiculous, as your Keynes argued, depending on the situation. On the other hand, structural changes should be made in consideration of the fact that the less unfortunate, as Smith also argued, are not able to weather them like the monied class can.

      Ok,, stepping down from my soap box. Anyone else want to take it?




      Now there's a starting point to a thread....
      Love Life - Love Cigars

      Comment


      • #4
        What IS Middle Class??

        ...........

        Pay 40% tax...

        Get penalised for putting in the work and hours to enable them to tax you that much...

        Have normal benefits taken away from you BECAUSE to pay more tax...


        Great system to pay of a National debt...

        I might go on the dole..
        Love Life - Love Cigars

        Comment


        • #5
          In work I pay all my taxes and work more than my contracted hours because I want the company to be succesful with our client. We employ a lot of professional agency staff , because we can't get them to go on the books. We pay anything up to 600 per day and the galling thing is they pay virtually no tax so they win in all aspects.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by PoohBore View Post
            In work I pay all my taxes and work more than my contracted hours because I want the company to be succesful with our client. We employ a lot of professional agency staff , because we can't get them to go on the books. We pay anything up to 600 per day and the galling thing is they pay virtually no tax so they win in all aspects.

            I hear you on that one.....

            Been fighting not to go contracting for the last 12 months..
            Love Life - Love Cigars

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't mind paying for the short term fill In staff that all construction companies need but 2.5 years and all training PPE etc is paid for by us and they still get the hump when the contract finishes!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bopmachine View Post
                I sir, applaud you. Very well said.
                Thank you Bopster--much appreciated. I just read a rather short and concise take on this topic, more or less, from an economics professor at Cornell:



                To me, the most worrisome quote is this: "The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent."

                I'm not sure how the UK compares, but this strikes me as egregious, to say the least, and if the general welfare of the people is the whole point of government, as folks such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, and Mill argued way back when, it seems things are a bit off track.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Looks like the UK is looking at some wickedly rough economic readjustments:

                  George Osborne unveils the biggest spending cuts in decades - with welfare, councils and police all hit.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X