|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 9:06:43 GMT
I thought you wanted to rid the country of low wages. Isn't that your reason for cutting the work force supply. Surely all these people being able to demand more money because of lack of competition is exactly what you want. I was about to commend you on actually managing to land a punch on target - but then it occurred to me that these people are public employees and are demanding more money from the state. Competition? Really? Close, but no cigar. But the reason they can demand more money is the lack of competition. Supply and demand, the god of the free market. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 19, 2023 9:50:37 GMT
I was about to commend you on actually managing to land a punch on target - but then it occurred to me that these people are public employees and are demanding more money from the state. Competition? Really? Close, but no cigar. But the reason they can demand more money is the lack of competition. Supply and demand, the god of the free market. For your competition argument to really work, people would need to be able to refuse the demand independently of the state |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 10:01:29 GMT
But the reason they can demand more money is the lack of competition. Supply and demand, the god of the free market. For your competition argument to really work, people would need to be able to refuse the demand independently of the state Yes but no one would. And that's the difficulty with your neat little argument. If you don't have pure market forces you end up with a more complicated equation. A balancing act. If you do have pure market forces you end up with anarchy and revolution. Where do you stop your pure market forces? Can the most violent use their violence to get rich? Can the rich buy violent men to protect them? Is starvation acceptable. Its all been tried. The poor are starving, they turn to crime, the country demands evermore cruel and severe punishments, the poor become more violent, the rich travel around in terror and build armies, the poor rise up and revolution destroys everything. Start again. And that's without touching on the opportunities that microbes see in an underfed and untreated population. Its all there in human history, Cholera in London, the French revolution, civil war, plagues. Your unwillingness to look beyond your single mantra makes this conversation impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 19, 2023 10:39:32 GMT
Yes but no one would. And that's the difficulty with your neat little argument. If you don't have pure market forces you end up with a more complicated equation. A balancing act. I'm really only talking about your point about competition here - If market forces were really the issue, there would be no need to go on strike. If people were left an option not to pay for the NHS, it would have likely have been closed down around the eighties. You are trying to have the cake of coercing payment with one hand and eat it by claiming the blind hand of the market with the other - the two don't sit well together If you do have pure market forces you end up with anarchy and revolution. Where do you stop your pure market forces? Can the most violent use their violence to get rich? Can the rich buy violent men to protect them? Is starvation acceptable. Its all been tried. The poor are starving, they turn to crime, the country demands evermore cruel and severe punishments, the poor become more violent, the rich travel around in terror and build armies, the poor rise up and revolution destroys everything. Start again. And that's without touching on the opportunities that microbes see in an underfed and untreated population. Its all there in human history, Cholera in London, the French revolution, civil war, plagues. Your unwillingness to look beyond your single mantra makes this conversation impossible. There is a hell of a lot of good stuff in here to discuss. I'm only going to do a top level summary here. Firstly, I am not a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist ideologue. If I have an ideology I would call it 'mag's law' - mag's law is that 'there is always a cost and if you can't see it you are fiddling with things while blindfolded' Here is my take on what you have put above - It all sounds great on paper, but your thinking is the road to hell because you don't understand what the cost is and so have no reason to stop at any point. The end point of applying your thinking again and again is a total nightmare. We could share a starting point - let's say we agree that a state should provide alleviation of basic, grinding poverty My response would be - okay, but you understand there is a cost, especially if this is procedural? Your response would be - excellent, let's move quickly to stage two, three and four. We have seen this again and again - For instance, parsimonious and reasonable attempts to alleviate the worst of the suffering become gigantic, out of control and abusive bureaucracies, running what amount to entrenched criminal operations at every else's expense. There is something I strongly feel you are not paying attention to and i occasionally try to draw your attention to it and that makes me look a bit like some libertarian absolutist - but i'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 11:15:24 GMT
Yes but no one would. And that's the difficulty with your neat little argument. If you don't have pure market forces you end up with a more complicated equation. A balancing act. You can't just separate them. If you do have pure market forces you end up with anarchy and revolution. Where do you stop your pure market forces? Can the most violent use their violence to get rich? Can the rich buy violent men to protect them? Is starvation acceptable. Its all been tried. The poor are starving, they turn to crime, the country demands evermore cruel and severe punishments, the poor become more violent, the rich travel around in terror and build armies, the poor rise up and revolution destroys everything. Start again. And that's without touching on the opportunities that microbes see in an underfed and untreated population. Its all there in human history, Cholera in London, the French revolution, civil war, plagues. Your unwillingness to look beyond your single mantra makes this conversation impossible. Of course there is a cost, the balance is what is the cost. There's a cost to giving the poor too much and a cost to giving them too little. Balance. That you think I don't understand this is the stereotyping you use to make your arguments easier. Why argue against what I actually say when you can stereotype me as a leftie naive snowflake, set up that as a strawman and address his views. Weirdly you also assume I do the same as you, yet I have never called you a libertarian absolutist. Every time I try and find common ground you wheel out strawman and make further conversation impossible. Its why I stopped discussing anything with you. My belief is that poverty is relative. a guy with a car in Sudan is rich compared to a man without enough to eat who is poor. A man who have a ski lodge in Austria in UK is rich compared to a man who has never taken his children on a holiday. The consequences I describe above are based on compared wealth, not absolute poverty. I feel that at the moment the wealth gap is too large. We have people living in pain every day from damaged joints, while others have 4 holidays a year staying in boutique hotels. I have no objection to the rich having 3 holidays a year and skipping one to pay for the persons knee op. Or 4 holidays a year in a 4 star hotel. The argument that the rich should be allowed to be as wealthy as they can be, ignores the effects of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 19, 2023 11:21:48 GMT
I know she is swimming in a pretty shallow pond but who on earth thought that Rachael Reeves was Chancellor material. Totally predictably - after she came out against the proposed scrapping of the Lifetime allowance and promised to give Doctors their own 'special deal' the Unions are now demanding the same 'special deals' for their members - Police, Teachers, nuclear inspectors, chief fire officers, air-traffic controllers and electrical engineers all now demanding the same as Doctors.. ...I mean how dumb do you have to be not to see this coming..  I thought you wanted to rid the country of low wages. Isn't that your reason for cutting the work force supply. Surely all these people being able to demand more money because of lack of competition is exactly what you want. I'm talking about Reeves creating a tax regime where some professions are deemed more worthy than others and are allowed to keep more of their own money. If you can come up with a reason why Teachers should be penalised but Doctors not then please share.. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 19, 2023 11:22:35 GMT
I thought you wanted to rid the country of low wages. Isn't that your reason for cutting the work force supply. Surely all these people being able to demand more money because of lack of competition is exactly what you want. I was about to commend you on actually managing to land a punch on target - but then it occurred to me that these people are public employees and are demanding more money from the state. Competition? Really? Close, but no cigar. While the state under a Conservative administration would be quite pleased if nurses and doctors started to move over to the private sector. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 19, 2023 11:29:14 GMT
I was about to commend you on actually managing to land a punch on target - but then it occurred to me that these people are public employees and are demanding more money from the state. Competition? Really? Close, but no cigar. While the state under a Conservative administration would be quite pleased if nurses and doctors started to move over to the private sector. Instead of moonlighting perhaps, but then we are back at the basic food of the political masses the NHS. Which was born out of politics and has been the basic food of politics ever since. Which as soon as the political arguments get complicated along comes see2 with what about the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 19, 2023 11:30:42 GMT
I was about to commend you on actually managing to land a punch on target - but then it occurred to me that these people are public employees and are demanding more money from the state. Competition? Really? Close, but no cigar. While the state under a Conservative administration would be quite pleased if nurses and doctors started to move over to the private sector. Well they are doing a crap job then as the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS has been going up. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 19, 2023 11:31:32 GMT
I know she is swimming in a pretty shallow pond but who on earth thought that Rachael Reeves was Chancellor material. Totally predictably - after she came out against the proposed scrapping of the Lifetime allowance and promised to give Doctors their own 'special deal' the Unions are now demanding the same 'special deals' for their members - Police, Teachers, nuclear inspectors, chief fire officers, air-traffic controllers and electrical engineers all now demanding the same as Doctors.. ...I mean how dumb do you have to be not to see this coming.. Are they? "the same special deals" since when? Hindsight is an easy ride used by the more pathetic posters on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 19, 2023 11:38:06 GMT
While the state under a Conservative administration would be quite pleased if nurses and doctors started to move over to the private sector. Well they are doing a crap job then as the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS has been going up. Distortions are your specialty ^^^. Your comment is out of context with my posted comment ^^^. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 19, 2023 11:45:21 GMT
I thought you wanted to rid the country of low wages. Isn't that your reason for cutting the work force supply. Surely all these people being able to demand more money because of lack of competition is exactly what you want. I'm talking about Reeves creating a tax regime where some professions are deemed more worthy than others and are allowed to keep more of their own money. If you can come up with a reason why Teachers should be penalised but Doctors not then please share.. You cleverlessly avoid the actual issue which is a tax designed to give more to one group 'the rich' and not another 'the poor' |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 19, 2023 11:46:30 GMT
Its all there in human history, Cholera in London, the French revolution, civil war, plagues.
Whataboutery.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 19, 2023 12:06:28 GMT
I'm talking about Reeves creating a tax regime where some professions are deemed more worthy than others and are allowed to keep more of their own money. If you can come up with a reason why Teachers should be penalised but Doctors not then please share.. You cleverlessly avoid the actual issue which is a tax designed to give more to one group 'the rich' and not another 'the poor' You created the issue all by yourself, because you didn't have enough knowledge to be elevated to the next level. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 19, 2023 12:22:40 GMT
You cleverlessly avoid the actual issue which is a tax designed to give more to one group 'the rich' and not another 'the poor' You created the issue all by yourself, because you didn't have enough knowledge to be elevated to the next level. lol |
|
