Sailfree
Well-known member
Re: If you must criticize everyone
Thank you for saying what I would have said but not so eloquently as you managed
Thank you for saying what I would have said but not so eloquently as you managed
If you must criticize Ellen
- Thread starter iangrant
- Start date
KevB
Active member
Guilty as charged
Guilty as charged officer. Yes, I have been flippant on these forums with remarks about Ellen's achievement. Belittling it because as has already been said - it was a race against the clock with almost all safety angles covered and seen as a huge expensive "project" (as Ellen called it) and not so much as a test of ones own fears and trepidations, to have boldly go where now man (or women) has gone before sort of journey.
Having watched the program on TV last night my thoughts have changed a little, whatever the expense and safety precautions I realise what an immense challenge she undertook and what a great triumph it was.
Well done Ellen.
Guilty as charged officer. Yes, I have been flippant on these forums with remarks about Ellen's achievement. Belittling it because as has already been said - it was a race against the clock with almost all safety angles covered and seen as a huge expensive "project" (as Ellen called it) and not so much as a test of ones own fears and trepidations, to have boldly go where now man (or women) has gone before sort of journey.
Having watched the program on TV last night my thoughts have changed a little, whatever the expense and safety precautions I realise what an immense challenge she undertook and what a great triumph it was.
Well done Ellen.
Evadne
Active member
Well you would say that...
Ah well, the IMF are solid dependable businessmen themselves and I'm just an unreconstructed old socialist who thinks that the government ought to be there for the benefit of the majority of the people, not the minority of entrepreneurs who offer to line the ministers' pockets with lucrative directorships if they promise to play ball. So what do I know?
I had always thought that the only real "capital" is peoples' time and effort, for which we give them a medium of exchange, aka money, so that we don't all have to go out and grow our own crops etc. The large sums of money that "business" earns is, inter alia, down to them not paying the workers a fair wage for a day's work, whether its in this country or the far east, and taxation is one way of redressing the balance as well as paying for the infrastructure that we all benefit from. It is possible to make more than a simple wage by honest means, but the richest people in the world have, at a basic level, obtained their riches by taking it from someone else. If this is fair, then they've no legitimate reason to object to someone else taking some of it back from them via taxation.
I expect we'll always differ on this point, although you do seem to express somewhat left wing ideas compared with some "businessmen" of my acquaintance. They almost make sense. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Ah well, the IMF are solid dependable businessmen themselves and I'm just an unreconstructed old socialist who thinks that the government ought to be there for the benefit of the majority of the people, not the minority of entrepreneurs who offer to line the ministers' pockets with lucrative directorships if they promise to play ball. So what do I know?
I had always thought that the only real "capital" is peoples' time and effort, for which we give them a medium of exchange, aka money, so that we don't all have to go out and grow our own crops etc. The large sums of money that "business" earns is, inter alia, down to them not paying the workers a fair wage for a day's work, whether its in this country or the far east, and taxation is one way of redressing the balance as well as paying for the infrastructure that we all benefit from. It is possible to make more than a simple wage by honest means, but the richest people in the world have, at a basic level, obtained their riches by taking it from someone else. If this is fair, then they've no legitimate reason to object to someone else taking some of it back from them via taxation.
I expect we'll always differ on this point, although you do seem to express somewhat left wing ideas compared with some "businessmen" of my acquaintance. They almost make sense. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
tome
New member
Re: Well you would say that...
[ QUOTE ]
The large sums of money that "business" earns is, inter alia, down to them not paying the workers a fair wage for a day's work
[/ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression there was a little bit more to it than this. Ah well, you live and learn.
[ QUOTE ]
The large sums of money that "business" earns is, inter alia, down to them not paying the workers a fair wage for a day's work
[/ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression there was a little bit more to it than this. Ah well, you live and learn.
tcm
...
jeez
um, well, so the fact that your/my house has gone up in value, or that BP has made a profit, or that a plumber has a nice car is down to Grand Larceny?
I'm afraid that this is the "pretend money" theory of economics- that there's a load of money in a bank, and we should all get a bit, like in Monopoly, and then who ever has most, has won, but has really sort of nicked it from other people, a bit, really. In the same way, anyone charging MORE than something cost them would be a bit cheaty, yes?
Unfortunately, this nasty profiit thing is entirely what marxism hoped to circumvent - but since there's no real benefit in me working harder than buggins, it all falls to bits. Soon enough, lots of people find that there are no boat-building jobs cos no boats, no marinas either, and we all get a bit desperate and the value of a "fair days pay" falls and falls.
You seem to propose that the government is the REAL money, whereas those business people are just cheaty bastards on the periphery. But in fact, the only source of taxation is profit - no profit, no tax, no public spending.
Government (and hence all of us) would be whole loads better off if it did what anyone planning to make money would do - concentrate on the income, which it could easily double or more. Frinstance, those hong kong industrial types wd've made us a few quid, hm? Cept we are still refusing to let in loads of the very most industrious foreigners. And with a lower tax regime other people and companies wd be attracted inwards so more tax again. No cheatiness here, and the govt gets more money for schools and nice fountains. Yep, need regulation to ensuure not too many freeloaders etc but otherwise al very doable imho, with not too much boatless Old Socialism needed.
um, well, so the fact that your/my house has gone up in value, or that BP has made a profit, or that a plumber has a nice car is down to Grand Larceny?
I'm afraid that this is the "pretend money" theory of economics- that there's a load of money in a bank, and we should all get a bit, like in Monopoly, and then who ever has most, has won, but has really sort of nicked it from other people, a bit, really. In the same way, anyone charging MORE than something cost them would be a bit cheaty, yes?
Unfortunately, this nasty profiit thing is entirely what marxism hoped to circumvent - but since there's no real benefit in me working harder than buggins, it all falls to bits. Soon enough, lots of people find that there are no boat-building jobs cos no boats, no marinas either, and we all get a bit desperate and the value of a "fair days pay" falls and falls.
You seem to propose that the government is the REAL money, whereas those business people are just cheaty bastards on the periphery. But in fact, the only source of taxation is profit - no profit, no tax, no public spending.
Government (and hence all of us) would be whole loads better off if it did what anyone planning to make money would do - concentrate on the income, which it could easily double or more. Frinstance, those hong kong industrial types wd've made us a few quid, hm? Cept we are still refusing to let in loads of the very most industrious foreigners. And with a lower tax regime other people and companies wd be attracted inwards so more tax again. No cheatiness here, and the govt gets more money for schools and nice fountains. Yep, need regulation to ensuure not too many freeloaders etc but otherwise al very doable imho, with not too much boatless Old Socialism needed.
Peppermint
New member
Re: No success is OK
It's just not the done thing to mention it yourself. Brit's like to praise and laud but they hate any hint of look at me. We still admire self-deprication and all that "it was a bit hairy but we still had tea".
That all makes getting sponsored a bit tricky. Not many marketing departments would go for the unassuming sort of stealth option.
It's just not the done thing to mention it yourself. Brit's like to praise and laud but they hate any hint of look at me. We still admire self-deprication and all that "it was a bit hairy but we still had tea".
That all makes getting sponsored a bit tricky. Not many marketing departments would go for the unassuming sort of stealth option.
Evadne
Active member
Words into my mouth?
Who brought Karl into this? All property is theft? What I was trying to say is that the only "real" thing in economics is the fuel - the work that goes in at the bottom end. All else is economic theory, money being invented as a medium of exchange which enable you to spend all day making widgets without having to take time out to grow crops or milk cows, then to go out and buy the essentials of life. You are more efficient this way, which is how profit is generated.
I've always assumed that economic theory came about because people werer trying to find the best way to deal with this profit. There are two opposite poles of economic theory here, capitalism, where money is more important than people ("unless you let people make a profit the world will come to an end") and socialism, where people are more important than money ("from each according to his means, to each according to his needs").
As with all economic theories, bar none, they should both be treated as guidelines at the most. If taken literally they are complete bullocks. (Some people hold that all economic theory is complete bullocks, and I tend to agree.) That's why we had a huge recession when some idiots thought Thatcherism (aka Reaganomics) was a sensible way to run the world economy. For the same reason the Soviet Union collapsed on itself without any interference form the outside world.
Reality has to treated a bit more empirically, but even the most cynical pragmatist has a moral starting point. In reality I think that businessmen on the one hand can't be trusted to act responsibly, which is why we have taxes, trading standards and even health and safety. On the other hand oiks like me can't be trusted to continue to work for the good of the economy unless they are treated with the carrot and stick of the wages system. I know the second to be true because if I didn't have to go out to work, I'd be out sailing. If you've ever dealt with a private monopoly you will have an insight into the first.
Who brought Karl into this? All property is theft? What I was trying to say is that the only "real" thing in economics is the fuel - the work that goes in at the bottom end. All else is economic theory, money being invented as a medium of exchange which enable you to spend all day making widgets without having to take time out to grow crops or milk cows, then to go out and buy the essentials of life. You are more efficient this way, which is how profit is generated.
I've always assumed that economic theory came about because people werer trying to find the best way to deal with this profit. There are two opposite poles of economic theory here, capitalism, where money is more important than people ("unless you let people make a profit the world will come to an end") and socialism, where people are more important than money ("from each according to his means, to each according to his needs").
As with all economic theories, bar none, they should both be treated as guidelines at the most. If taken literally they are complete bullocks. (Some people hold that all economic theory is complete bullocks, and I tend to agree.) That's why we had a huge recession when some idiots thought Thatcherism (aka Reaganomics) was a sensible way to run the world economy. For the same reason the Soviet Union collapsed on itself without any interference form the outside world.
Reality has to treated a bit more empirically, but even the most cynical pragmatist has a moral starting point. In reality I think that businessmen on the one hand can't be trusted to act responsibly, which is why we have taxes, trading standards and even health and safety. On the other hand oiks like me can't be trusted to continue to work for the good of the economy unless they are treated with the carrot and stick of the wages system. I know the second to be true because if I didn't have to go out to work, I'd be out sailing. If you've ever dealt with a private monopoly you will have an insight into the first.
Superflid
New member
Re: Madamoiselle Arthurpierre
[ QUOTE ]
Is'nt she from around Ashby de la Zouche ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dunno, but it's not done much for my French.... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Is'nt she from around Ashby de la Zouche ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dunno, but it's not done much for my French.... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
jhr
Well-known member
Attack of pedantry
[ QUOTE ]
Who brought Karl into this? All property is theft?
[/ QUOTE ]
Famous misconception: it was Proudhon, not Marx, who said that property is theft. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you, but I'm staying out of this..............
[ QUOTE ]
Who brought Karl into this? All property is theft?
[/ QUOTE ]
Famous misconception: it was Proudhon, not Marx, who said that property is theft. Otherwise, I mostly agree with you, but I'm staying out of this..............
tcm
...
are you *sure* you have a sailing boat?
Cripes, DW, this is amazing. Up until now i always felt that sailing types were quite analytical and intelligent and needed to be so in order to handle the navigation etc. How wrong i was eh!
Cripes, DW, this is amazing. Up until now i always felt that sailing types were quite analytical and intelligent and needed to be so in order to handle the navigation etc. How wrong i was eh!
Peppermint
New member
Re: Can I feel a pitchfork rebellion coming on.
The only truth is that capital pays for raw stuff. Then it pays for processing the raw stuff. That adds value. Then it sells it for whatever the market will bare. If that creates profits they are doled out between the modern term "stakeholders". Then the cycle goes around again.
Now while all this is going on, one of the "stakeholders", the government, huffs and puffs on the sidelines making every effort to appear responsible for any corporate success and completely not to blame, no not even a little bit, for any failure.
Meanwhile "Business" ignores them and gets on with real life.
From personal experience whether a government tells me it's greasing the ways or trying to hamstring my growth makes very little difference to me.
As for whether business men can be trusted is quite an interesting subject. I can be trusted to give my employees a fair shake. I decide what a fair shake is and if they don't like it they tell me or they walk. I have no trouble finding or retaining workers even though our pay rates aren't that great, not much carrot or stick there then. If I find labour legislation has a cost, that cost comes out of the pot marked " labour costs". So I, as a company, don't carry the cost of legislation, the workers do, they could have more wages if the Employers Contribution to NI was cut for example. Thats the enigma of socialist thinking. They think they're sticking it to the employer but it just isn't so. They're shafting the workers.
Don't get me on to Labours Capital Expenditure.
The only truth is that capital pays for raw stuff. Then it pays for processing the raw stuff. That adds value. Then it sells it for whatever the market will bare. If that creates profits they are doled out between the modern term "stakeholders". Then the cycle goes around again.
Now while all this is going on, one of the "stakeholders", the government, huffs and puffs on the sidelines making every effort to appear responsible for any corporate success and completely not to blame, no not even a little bit, for any failure.
Meanwhile "Business" ignores them and gets on with real life.
From personal experience whether a government tells me it's greasing the ways or trying to hamstring my growth makes very little difference to me.
As for whether business men can be trusted is quite an interesting subject. I can be trusted to give my employees a fair shake. I decide what a fair shake is and if they don't like it they tell me or they walk. I have no trouble finding or retaining workers even though our pay rates aren't that great, not much carrot or stick there then. If I find labour legislation has a cost, that cost comes out of the pot marked " labour costs". So I, as a company, don't carry the cost of legislation, the workers do, they could have more wages if the Employers Contribution to NI was cut for example. Thats the enigma of socialist thinking. They think they're sticking it to the employer but it just isn't so. They're shafting the workers.
Don't get me on to Labours Capital Expenditure.
Ships_Cat
New member
Re: Words into my mouth?
Who brought Karl into this
I thought you had. I was convinced that you must have filched your post from his writings.
John
Who brought Karl into this
I thought you had. I was convinced that you must have filched your post from his writings.
John
Rowana
Two steps lower than the ships' cat
Indian theory
Indian on a reservation was asked what he thought of life now the white man ruled.
"Once I hunted buffalo all day and sha**ed squaw in teepee all night. Only white man thought he could improve on that ! ! "
/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Indian on a reservation was asked what he thought of life now the white man ruled.
"Once I hunted buffalo all day and sha**ed squaw in teepee all night. Only white man thought he could improve on that ! ! "
/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif