But apparently it should have the same value no matter what. Not sure how that would be defined, we're just waiting to find out from Radiation.
UK double dip recession inevitable
- Thread starter gothic_hobbit
- Start date
But apparently it should have the same value no matter what. Not sure how that would be defined, we're just waiting to find out from Radiation.
What if i want to live in a huge mansion with miles and miles of land, why can't i have half of Africa as my backard?
At what point does this line of thinking become unreasonable, greedy, taking at the expense of others?
You make a piece of art which a few people like, the materials and labour that went into it cost you at most £50, are you entitled to thousands of profit or whatever someone is willing to pay you for it?
Just because you can distribute a lot of wealth your way doesn't mean it's good in the long run, it will have a negative effect somewhere, multiply this and you can see part of the reason why we have the problems we do.
The thing the rich don't understand is if they keep the system working this way it will affect them one way or another down the line, social unrest, lots of people not working, a crappy economy, less stuff to spend their money on, devaluing their wealth etc, if it gets real bad there will be a backlash from the poor and wars, most well off and rich couldn't avoid the negatives if it got that bad.
Last edited:
I don't see what you're getting at here, but you can, if you can afford it.
Yes of course you are entitled to that. That cost by nature is what the market values your times/skills as. What better way is there to define this?
I really can't understand how your proposed system could work
I don't see what you're getting at here, but you can, if you can afford it.
Yes of course you are entitled to that. That cost by nature is what the market values your times/skills as. What better way is there to define this?
I really can't understand how your proposed system could work
You don't understand the result of greed and selfish thinking?
The system im talking about would require a lot less growth, it's about sustainability, the economy would do better because people could afford more as there will be more jobs, things won't cost much more than they need to so they'll spend more at more places so creating more jobs, everyone makes a fair profit.
Interesting article I read a while back,
It was about why slavery was really abolished (not for humanitarian reasons) - the problem was "work ethic" - the slaves did not a single bit more than was asked of them, they deliberately made mistakes (as a method of getting back at there oppressors), showed no initiative, required constant supervision etc.
It turned out that it's actually cheaper to pay somebody a low wage to do the same work, once you take into account the much greater productivity.
The same could be said for modern society to an extent (well, I mean to even out wages to the level the workers don't really think/worry about money, not specifically making everybody rich).
Ironically all scientific tests have proven that a greater financial reward actually decreases performance for any job which requires the use of even average cognitive ability - only manual labour saw a direct correlation between performance & increased pay.
It was about why slavery was really abolished (not for humanitarian reasons) - the problem was "work ethic" - the slaves did not a single bit more than was asked of them, they deliberately made mistakes (as a method of getting back at there oppressors), showed no initiative, required constant supervision etc.
It turned out that it's actually cheaper to pay somebody a low wage to do the same work, once you take into account the much greater productivity.
The same could be said for modern society to an extent (well, I mean to even out wages to the level the workers don't really think/worry about money, not specifically making everybody rich).
Ironically all scientific tests have proven that a greater financial reward actually decreases performance for any job which requires the use of even average cognitive ability - only manual labour saw a direct correlation between performance & increased pay.
Perhaps, but your system would never work, given that you can't adequately explain how you would calculate the cost of anything.
Lets take an example. I own a 2 bedroom flat in Warwickshire, talk me through how you'd price that.
But that's based on what the market will bear, not some communist mechanism.
If you want me to come up with a perfect system you're asking a bit much on a computer forum, just know it would need some intelligent people taking into account many variables and an overall change to the system and way people think about value, the real value comes from a better economy and society as a whole, long term vs short term gains.
Though just for an idea, when a house is built it would cost not much more than the materials and labour that created it plus a percent of profit, once its done it will maintain or slowly lose value as it ages based on it's state.
So a 3 bed semi in Mayfair should be worth the same as a 3 bed Semi in Coventry?
Given that under such a scheme 1sqmetre of land would presumably cost the same anywhere?
But but but "man is inherently greedy" they say and feudal capitalism has come about as its the "best" system.
Asking some people to see the world from another p.o.v is impossible as we have all been raised under the current system. Like the argument here. One utopian socialist vs some Keynesian economist.
im hungry wish i hadn't skipped lunch
Asking some people to see the world from another p.o.v is impossible as we have all been raised under the current system. Like the argument here. One utopian socialist vs some Keynesian economist.
im hungry wish i hadn't skipped lunch
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Surely a requisite of that is that we pay back more than we borrow? Which just isn't the case.
Then there's the matter of 'who' we 'owe' this money to. What will be the point at which defaulting looks like the more appealing option?
Yes within reason, based on quality of construction and materials used, things will vary just not as much, if they're identical though i can't see any justification for a different value, can you?
Yes, I can. One is in a highly desirable place in the centre of London, one is in Coventry. Why on earth should they have the same value!?
Things that are most desirable cost more. Simples.
If you want to afford those things that are more desirable, work hard and you will get them.
You're looking at this from the questionable point of view under the current system which has been shown to be flawed, just because something is more desirable to some doesn't mean it's worth more in materials, try looking at this from a rational not a superficial human want vs need point of view.
Where did I say it would be worth more in materials? Why is that even relevant!?
Something should be priced at what the market will bear, the difference between that and materials is obviously profit. This creates an incentive for companies to create differentiated products that are desirable - hence driving innovation.
Under your system, the price will be determined by the component parts and the labour required to put it together, rather than the economic value that product can deliver. A fundamentally flawed approach.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
Why has it been shown to be flawed? Because people can/do not have everything they desire?
A system where everyone has everything is complete fantasy as there are simply not enough resources to go round and it would remove the incentive to work & thereby provide goods & services others desire.
Who is going to build the car you buy if they don't have to because they have no incentive to work. Who is going to grow surplus food to supply you if there is no need for them to do so.
No pne party can be fully self sufficient, indeed it is a more efficient use of resources to specialise in one are of production. Therefore a system of goods exchange or bartering is required. Some items are more resource/time intensive than others givng them a higher comparable value and if demand for these items outweighs supply then the buyers will be prepared to 'pay' a premium above the comparative value in order to secure them.
So you see, even at the most basic level of swapping chickens for a pig, if there are fewer pigs than people who want them the man with the fewest chickens misses out.
To me, the idea of paying everyone, equally, for having children is very silly and flawed. Especially if it's designed in such a way that everyone with kid can get it, including Prime Minister.
To working parents, the £20.30 a week makes very little to no difference, to non working parents that money suddenly becomes passport to better life, as it comes with additional benefits - bigger house, etc. And then we have the further oddity of the child benefits, where any "resident", temporary migrant, student, refugee, asylum seeker, anyone with temporary or permanent resident status is offered that 20 quid as long as they can prove they managed to breed at some point in the last n-teen years. In many cases regardless of whether the kid is actually physically present in the country for more than a day. That's insane. It's incentive in a wrong direction. Take it away. Dont' give it to just anyone. Any financial help for parents should be means tested first.
Why not offer social care or food tokens instead. We'll feed you and your kid, we'll give your kids lunch tokens they can exchange for sandwiches at school, we'll make sure kids have appropriate school and winter clothing, if it's "difficult family situation" we'll provide the kid with after hours extra curriculum - space to read, watch TV, paint, draw, do homework and play with other kids until late afternoon. And assign social worker to monitor if parents start breeding without means to maintain existing family.
The jumpsuit is to create stigma. Being jobless should be bad, it should be thrown upon. At the moment there is no stigma about being unemployed for prolonged period of time.
If anything, it's vice versa, most of my neighbours can't believe I wake up every morning and go to work, return late and night and I will have to keep doing it for the next 25 years of my mortgage. Why would anyone do it, if you can get the same house practically for free, and chill out all day with mates while watching sky sports with a can of Tescos lager in your hand. Yellow jumpsuits, if they don't like to wear them, there is plenty of equally mind numbing jobs out there to apply that don't involve wearing bright uniform - washing dishes, cleaning offices on night shift, etc.
No, not slavery. Payback. After first 12 months you would simply have to work for your further benefits. So it's not slavery, you get effectively paid for it. Let's say you would need to do 20 hours a week. Which would leave you with at least another 20 to find a job. You'd be encouraged to check all the listings before you get picked up for your motorway ditch clearing duties. It's not to punish you. It's to provide you with incentive to find any other work. Because let's face it, if you couldn't find one for 12 months, the chances that you might be rocket scientist pressed to the ground by economic downturn is very slim and the chance that you just ef around is rather high. And tax payers cannot sponsor idleness forever. Can they? It is not unfair to the jobless, it's unfair to those who pay for it, right?
There is employment law and minimum wage guarding that. You can continue getting minimum government handouts for fishing trolleys our of river bed in yellow jumsuit, or.. or... and I know this is unusual idea... actually do other work - like sling some burgers for your old jumpsuit mates, be a waiter, or bus driver, or shop assistant or whatever else is available to anyone than walks through the door, including those that don't speak English. That's how desperate that part of job market is, you see, they will even give the job to someone who needs instructions in signed language. Sure it's not the same as browsing facebook while at work for some Acme Corp, but it sure beats yellow jumpsuit and painting over grafitis? True Story.
Not strictly child benefits, but why not - well, one part of me says - "if you can't afford to live in Paris, you shouldn't live in Paris". In what alternate universe should tax payer pay for a lifestyle you cannot afford, especially for prolonged period of time? Tough. Sell it and downsize. The other part of me thinks this should be part of your mortgage insurance package?
Plus the current system creates so many anomalies - parents splitting up just to get second council flat and then rent, or people working in Canary Wharf offices that travel from mop closet studios all over s***holes and deep suburbs in Kent and Essex, while people who don't work or work very little, live in duplex flats on Isle Of Dogs and Poplar with view over Canary Wharf and will keep living there as long as they don't let anyone to promote them above shelf stacker position in Asda. So on, so forth. That's not right. That's just oddity. Oddity involving several million people. And they begin to believe it's how it should be - that it's the regular turn of events!
How is having several generations of council flat dwellers base their lifestyle on teenage pregnancy and handouts any better though?
Last edited: