30/11 Strikes.

[Vonhelmet]

The only reason everyone needs money is because people attach moentary value to everything ? What if it was more like, I have skill x you have skill y, I have a job that needs doing but requires skill x and vice versa, exchange of labour does not need financial gain.

Take a week off, read The Wealth Of Nations, then come back to this discussion.

 

[PermaBanned]

If i may suggest the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists as well?

 

[wildman]

Take a week off, read The Wealth Of Nations, then come back to this discussion.

I full appreciate my post is ludicrously insane but imagine what a world could be like where money isn't the first thing on everyones minds ? and exploiting people / resources etc for purely financial gain wasn't necessary.

We could all wear dodgy jump suits and phone up scotty asking for more power ?

 

[Biohazard]

Take a week off, read The Wealth Of Nations, then come back to this discussion.

Why?

It's only half of the puzzle at best, did you get the other book I told you?

 

[Robbo]

I full appreciate my post is ludicrously insane but imagine what a world could be like where money isn't the first thing on everyones minds ? and exploiting people / resources etc for purely financial gain wasn't necessary.

We could all wear dodgy jump suits and phone up scotty asking for more power ?

It'd be nice if I could fly too, but that isn't going to happen either.

 

[Biohazard]

I full appreciate my post is ludicrously insane but imagine what a world could be like where money isn't the first thing on everyones minds ? and exploiting people / resources etc for purely financial gain wasn't necessary.

We could all wear dodgy jump suits and phone up scotty asking for more power ?

It's not that insane, it's the only viable alternative in the event of global economic collapse which is the "insane" aspect, not bartering.

 

[Clairvoyant]

My kids school has 7 classes open, and 14 closed.

So I have my 6 year old boy in year 2 off, and my 8 year old daughter in year 3 in.

So that is more of a joke than both being off.

How do I stand if I keep my daughter off as well.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Why?

It's only half of the puzzle at best, did you get the other book I told you?

Depends, what did you recommend to me?

Was it his other one - the moral principles one? Someone here recommended that to me, but I've not got round to it yet.

 

[Biohazard]

Depends, what did you recommend to me?

Was it his other one - the moral principles one? Someone here recommended that to me, but I've not got round to it yet.

Bingo. Then you can come back to the discussion as well.

They were intended to have synergy. Unfortunately one book took off the others not so.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Monopolies always deliver worse value and results to the consumer. We know this. This is why we let our governments spend years and billions of our money on monitoring the markets, preventing monopolies, breaking them up or spending money to create and encourage competition in an otherwise locked market.

Then it goes and creates "preferred bidders" or a very small clique of companies that get Govt contracts despite screwing up previous contracts.

However, we are perversely more than happy it seems to allow a monopoly on some things that are very important to us - health and education.

Because we do not trust our health to an industry which is only motivated by profit.

Money is not (or is not just) the solution to better education and healthcare. We need consumer choice. That's another word, I'm afraid (and I'm afraid because it seems to cause some people to crap their pants) for market forces.

Typical ******** from the right. I remember before New Labour got in the nightly news stories of schools with leaking classroom roofs due to previous under-funding. You do need money for these problems.

It never fails to amaze me that people rabbit on about choice. Only the rich have choice, the mass of ordinary people do not have choice.

Unless you are blind to what happens in the real world, market forces creates an over-supply on certain profitable things and do not supply others even if they are badly needed. You only need to look at the way Royal Mail is going to see what the market does.

If their income is absolutely tied to saving lives and delivering the best (and 'the best' would be relative to their competition), they will be more interested in saving lives and providing the best care to their patients.

Amazingly enough that is what doctors and nurses do - provide the best care they can - and they do not need the profit motive.

The biggest and most powerful thing we as consumers have is our choice. Our choice to take our custom (and thus money) to another provider. We currently do not have that choice. We can have it with our without introducing a profit motive into the NHS or education, but that is another debate.

Introduce the profit motive and we will all be magically better. The arguement is so pathetic. Companies will be better off but the patients will not.

You currently trust the private profit motive to build your washing machine. You have a good washing machine which runs efficiently, is relatively good for the environment, didn't cost the earth and is reasonably well built. You also trust the profit motive and competition for companies like Siemens to build life support machines, or to produce food you may feed to your baby. If the profit motive is inherently bad and results in worse output, you wouldn't trust any of this

The washing machine example was poor or good if you disagree with the profit motive. You forgot to mention that they build in redundancy so that you will be forced to buy another in six(the normal redundancy period) years. I do not want my health problems to be treated only to discover that they return after a few years because the company needs to make more profit from me.

 

[do_ron_ron]

‎"Unions: the people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour. What a bunch of greedy ********." - Priyamvada Gopal

shamelessly stolen

You forgot to mention paid holidays and paid meal breaks amongst many others.

 

[RDM]

You forgot to mention paid holidays and paid meal breaks amongst many others.

Paid meal breaks? I don't think I have ever worked somewhere with paid meal breaks.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Paid meal breaks? I don't think I have ever worked somewhere with paid meal breaks.

I do, but then we have a strong union

 

[Dolph]

Then it goes and creates "preferred bidders" or a very small clique of companies that get Govt contracts despite screwing up previous contracts.

Indeed, but that is a problem with top down procurement rather than bottom up choice.

Because we do not trust our health to an industry which is only motivated by profit.

Because we're irrational and don't look at the evidence that shows less people die unnecessarily under a mixed system?

Typical ******** from the right. I remember before New Labour got in the nightly news stories of schools with leaking classroom roofs due to previous under-funding. You do need money for these problems.

No, you need better spending of the money, something Labour failed completely to achieve by throwing money at the problem...

It never fails to amaze me that people rabbit on about choice. Only the rich have choice, the mass of ordinary people do not have choice.

That's the problem with enforced state monopoly providers, yes.

Unless you are blind to what happens in the real world, market forces creates an over-supply on certain profitable things and do not supply others even if they are badly needed. You only need to look at the way Royal Mail is going to see what the market does.

The postal service are not an example of a free market though. They are an example of a market broken via regulation.

Amazingly enough that is what doctors and nurses do

And yet 11,000 people a year die needlessly because of the substandard care of the NHS...

Introduce the profit motive and we will all be magically better. The arguement is so pathetic. Companies will be better off but the patients will not.

If it is done correctly, patients will be better off, because the healthcare providers will be forced to focus on them structurally, rather than having a structure designed to fail patients with dodgy, toothless targets put on the top.

The washing machine example was poor or good if you disagree with the profit motive. You forgot to mention that they build in redundancy so that you will be forced to buy another in six(the normal redundancy period) years. I do not want my health problems to be treated only to discover that they return after a few years because the company needs to make more profit from me.

That sort of thing happens now on the NHS, they don't treat anything properly until permanent damage has been done and lives ruined...

 

[Vonhelmet]

Bingo. Then you can come back to the discussion as well.

They were intended to have synergy. Unfortunately one book took off the others not so.

You're right, and I will read it soon. However, there's no denying that Wealth Of Nations explains very clearly how money came to exist and why it's necessary.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

So I can safely say you hate unions dolph?

 

[Dolph]

So I can safely say you hate unions dolph?

The idea or the reality in the UK?

Unions have done valuable work in the past, and have potential to do more in the future if they stop their political activities and start working with employers and employees with respect to the modern economic reality. I'm also strongly in favour of employee councils within businesses, working in a company with a strong employee group in an industry with a rabid, politically motivated and somewhat irrational union.

I do dislike (hate is too strong a word, there is very little I hate) the way the big unions behave, the hypocrisy of their leadership, the failure to work in their members long term interests, their desire to subvert the democratic process of the UK by attacking the government when their bought and paid for bitch isn't in power and so on...

 

[MrMoonX]

My kids school has 7 classes open, and 14 closed.

So I have my 6 year old boy in year 2 off, and my 8 year old daughter in year 3 in.

So that is more of a joke than both being off.

How do I stand if I keep my daughter off as well.

call the year 3 teacher a scab and say your keeping your daughter at home

 

[wildman]

So I can safely say you hate unions dolph?

I don't think that is a fair comment TBH. I don't think he hates them, I think he is not particular enamoured with the way some of the larger unions use certain tactics and unions chiefs who are out to line their own pockets with gold at the cost of the blood of their so called workforce they claim to represent ?

I am sure I have seen Dolph posting that total loss of unions would be a bad thing ?

 

[MrMoonX]

desire to subvert the democratic process of the UK by attacking the government when their bought and paid for bitch isn't in power and so on...

they attacked labour when they were in power as well, so thats not really true is it, in fact labour caused the first ever strike by prison officers in 2007. You also have to remember that not all unions pay money to labour, mine doesn't, we voted to not subscribe to any political party