The rise of socialism

la gran siete

no I just think you are driven by the misconception that the country is riddled with people who are scroungers and that the welfare state encourages the proliferation of such people.In fact they are fe win number because the vast majority of people do not wish to be on benefits which barely keep them alive

domtheone

Why stop there.

Benefit payments to lazy buggers.  Triple lock pension.  PS Pensions.  The Cash behemoth that is the NHS.  The under funding of our roads/infrastructure.

Whilst the tax (direct) burden on us average ish earners has been improved of late (thanks to LD/CON - not Labour), I simply object to pretty much any mention of tax increases, because government(s) spending decisions/allocations is/are so poor (imo).

Toko Black

What others are willing to pay is unrelated to fairness or nor is it an accurate indicator of value to society.
It could well be if human beings and groups of human beings acted and reacted in rational, logical and reasoned ways, but they don't.
- Humans under and over estimate the value and importance of things.
- Humans under and over estimate the value and importance of other humans.
- Humans under and over estimate their own value and importance.
- Humans learn societal behaviours and tend to follow them with little thought.
- Humans tend to associate brands and price with quality and performance which in turn has a placebo effect on their experience of a product or service.

We have advertising standards and laws in place specifically to stop many outright lies in selling products or services because otherwise many individuals and organisations succumb to fraud.
Current restrictions mean advertisers can't tell certain types of out right lies, but they still can massage the truth and be deceptive and many do take advantage of that.
Fraud, cartels, monopolies and other forms of anti-competetive behaviours aimed at taking advantage of other companies and individuals are still common place.

The lists of human failing and those of the structures they create and operate within is pretty endless, so any assertion of value or worth based on subjective desire to buy is detached from reality at least in the sense of actual contribution to society - especially in a society where most people are far removed from the actual means of production and only have a loose connection to the needs to survive in nature.
Otherwise, by your base argument, J K Rowling is one of the most important and valuable contributers to human society and worth far more than someone like Alexander Fleming who would be earning around £100k by today's money.

Hell, most of those X-factor and Britian's got talent z-list celebrities have more 'value' than you or I ..... Pudsey the Dog is probably considered worth more than us ... and all the nurses, doctors, surgeons, fire fighters, police, soldiers, scientists et al by your 'value' system.

Toko Black

I think most people would agree with that - even those on benefits.
The problem as I see it as that trying to punish those who see it as a lifestyle choice has historically always ended up with punishing those who genuinely do need help in significant ways.
How do you plan and design a way that punishes those who deserve it while protecting the genuine ?
How do you balance the cost of implementing and managing such a system against any saving you would make ?

If it turns out, and I am afraid it often does, that any attempts to penalise the small number of layabouts and cheats ends up costing far more than expected and causes more social problems elsewhere, especially with the fallout effecting genuine people.
Should we still pursue such a course or is it cutting off ones nose to spite ones face ?

Cliff

I don't think anyone said it was. But that is the way of the world. Kim Kardashian gets paid millions and the boffins working and finding new cancer cures are paid normal PAYE salaries. We know it appears all wrong but it is normal people who make the Kardashians rich. You cannot change it and why should you?

Pacifico

If neoliberalism dies then you need to replace it with something else - socialism obviously doesn't work and no other system has been suggested.

So I would suggest that neoliberalism will be around for a bit longer yet.

Pacifico

There is a rather large difference between being owned by and being run by. Once you get politicians involved in day to day running of industry and utilities we see the service to the customer fall.

la gran siete

even economists have backed Jezza's plan (old article but I am sure it is still relevant Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies

la gran siete

It is old and no longer relevant, being based on vague and now hugely outdated assumptions of Corbyns plans.

For instance, no mention of nationalisation, dramatic increases in the tax take, etc.

Bl4ckGryph0n

neoliberalism has been quite disastrous in as much as we have seen a massive increase in inequality which means loads of people are having to suffer austerity measures through no fault of their own .All that does is ferment a great deal of discontent. The best period came just after the war  stretching right into the 70s during the era of  welfare capitalism and Keynesianism. That is when the Western world was at it's most dynamic