|
NorthernGent -> RE: Giovanni Di Biaggios (10/10/2006 11:38:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Based on the above, you've missed the point of the post. My post is not discussing the merits and limititations of wealth creation.
Sorry for that misunderstanding - its just that very often, you seem to portray this Socialist Worker image, which I perhaps unfairly attributed as the source of this thread too.
No apology necessary but my advice is to understand where you're getting this Socialist image from. I have stated directly to you on more than one occasion that I am not, never have been and never will be a Socialist but you have a habit of resorting to this when we have a conversation. It gets in the way of what is being discussed. Please, no more Socialist. Social welfare does not equal Socialism - the former is a social policy, the latter is an economic form of Government. They are not one and the same. Every country in Europe has social policies but not one operates a Socialist Government.
I'm talking about a society where product and style means more than people's welfare. We moan and whinge about paying tax towards social provision but we don't mind paying 60 quid to get a hairdo (it's a hairdo for God's sake.....snip, snip.....£60 please....oh, bargain, thanks very much) just because the shop is shiney and full of dolly birds who consumers are aspiring to because they've over-indulged in too many magazines. I am not talking about entrepreneurial endeavour. I am talking about our society and the way we are prepared to pay way, way over the top for nothing because of a perceived level of social acceptance (because we have the media in our brains day after day telling us we need these things to be fulfilled).
I agree with you. We are far too obsessed with ourselves, and with trying to live up to some image we're sold as being what we ought to be. If I only watched TV and only read magazines, I'd think my situation hopeless, as all the women there are perfect Goddesses in every way. But then I take a walk in the real world, and see that in fact most women are fairly normal and so my self image is not threatened after all - well, only as much as any woman's is.
Fair enough. The hairdresser's shop was simply an example. It is all of us, we're all at it. Day in, day out, we are fed all sorts of marketing propaganda which is telling us we need this, that and the other in order to make our lives worth living.
I'll borrow an example from the US, in 1997 Adbusters (Canadian I think) tried to air a counter-consumerism ad in which an animated pig superimposed on a map of North America smacked its lips while saying "The average North American consumes five times more than a Mexican, 10 times more than a Chinese person, and 30 times more than a person from India....Give it a rest. November 28th is Buy Nothing Day." NBC, CBS and ABC flatly refused to run it even though the funding for it was there. The vice-President of NBC said they did not want to take advertising which is in conflict with their legitimate business interests and CBS said they rejected it because it was,in their words,"in opposition to the current economic policy in the US". In other words, the media has become largely a tool for business interests to force ramapant consumerism down our throats - and we're falling for it. In Britain, Murdoch's News Corporation did not pay a single penny Corporation Tax between 1987 and 1998 and they made £1.4 billion profit in Britain in this period. Is this what you mean when you say businesses are "at breaking point" and "can't go no further". Surely you can see there is something seriously wrong with the likes of Murdoch lording it, not paying any tax and Britain having serious social deprivation? I am not arguing that Capitalism is a flawed system. I fully accept that Capitalism has proven itself to be the best method of wealth creation. I am saying that what we have today is an extreme form of Capitalism where the media, business and Government are in each other's pockets turning people's minds that life is about consumerism and individualism. Even the Conservative manifestos pre 1979 believed in full employment rather than Thatcher inspired survival of the fittest. The problem is, while Murdoch is taking and putting nothing back then he is effectively taking the share of the poorest socio-economic groups in society. Did you know that by 1996 Britain had the highest proportion of children living in poverty in Western Europe? Not very impressive is it. Come to think of it LadyE, you shouldn't be labelling people Socialists simply because they question this state of affairs, you should be wondering what is going on.
In my position, I ought to have a five bedroomed mansion in Surrey. I ought to have a Bentley and a Ferrari. I ought to have plastic surgery every year. I ought to wear the latest ridiculous crap that trundles out of the fashion houses of London, Paris and Milan. Thing is, I know thats a load a crap. I dont want it, I wouldnt have it even if I could afford it and to be honest I find those who pursue it to be, well, lets say shallow and remain polite about it.
But in the end, if people have the money, then some people will engage in that elusive and illusory search for the perfect life. It would be impossible to prevent it, and also impossible to prevent entrepreneurs from exploiting their search.
See Murdoch point above. I take your point that it's not for you and fair enough but entrepreneurship and exploitation are not joined at the hip. We can have a propserous society and we can have social welfare.
We also have to bear in mind, that in the absence of strict class structures such as we used to have, money is what governs class these days because we are still class concious.
Wealth brings privilege - and since we Brits seem obsessed with social climbing, so many of us will give the appearance of wealth, even if we dont have it. Mrs Smith could get her hair done in her own home for about 20 quid, but by being seen at Giovanni's and paying over the top for the same service, she will feel better than the rest of us and others will see her in a different light too - she can afford such indulgence, ergo she is better than me etc. One sees the same thing in all consumer markets - ordinary people paying for stuff they dont need, all to keep up with the Jones's, and all on credit, most usually. Its whats keeping the economy going after all - a whole country running on credit because no one wants to be thought of as less than successful and wealthy and upper middle class.
Exactly, an economy propped up by credit. This is not entrepreneurship it is rampant consumerism. Entrepreneurship is setting the conditions for business in an area, businesses moving into the area and the skill set being created in order for labour to fill the jobs offered by these businesses. Sustainable economic growth is created through long term investment in assets and labour skills that allow people to raise their standards of living through economic growth. This is not what we have today. We have a situation where people are being convinced to borrow money they don't have to fill their houses with junk in order to prop up the economy. It is an illusion of an improved standard of living.
In other words, we value over-priced, stylistic items because we live in a society that places higher value on consumerism to achieve social acceptance than it does social welfare.
I agree we place too much value on achieving an image, but this worthless activity is what is driving the economy right now, so that social welfare can be afforded. As I have said before, there will always be an underclass and there will always be a need for social welfare, even if we had full employment. Its the nature of a market economy which relies on comparative wealth disparities (in terms of not just money, but skills, production/service technology et al) for it to function. In such a system, some skills and technologies will be worth more, and some less, and so those engaged on activities on the less side will form an underclass, whatever happens.
As I have also said before, we make sufficient provision for social welfare in the UK - more than sufficient perhaps. I calculated last night that my little company provides nearly half a million pounds in tax revenues to the government every year, and thats not counting all the fuel duties and VAT and so on, which I and my employees pay in our life outside of work. We cannot pay more without making the whole thing unviable. And thats just one little company amongst thousands.
There are more businesses than yours in Britain, see Murdoch point. We have the biggest wealth gap in Western Europe and what you're effectively saying is you agree with this (as you think we have sufficient provision for social welfare in the UK). You know what, Britain and the US think like this but in the West we are in the minority. The rest of Europe does not think like us.
You're so far wrong when you say there is sufficient social provision in the UK. You've been tricked by the illusion. Scratch the surface and Britain is creaking. Look at the stats for child poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, anti-depressant use, teenage pregnancy and crime and you'll find, when compared with Western Europe, we're in trouble.
If the people who require social welfare would treat it as a hand up, rather than as a handout, then I could be more sympathetic,
Well, this is the top and bottom of it. The old "they're all workshy" routine and "they're spongers". Out of interest, can you post just one social study that supports this statement?
but I live amongst these people and the vast majority of them seem to be doing very well on benefits thank you very much.
Meanwhile, the people in the Deansgate obviously require some assistance - they are entitled to benefits and housing, so why are they not getting it? No more money is required, but definitely the system needs to be examined closely and reviewed with the aim being not to induce a lifestyle but a safety net as intended, and to remove the fraud and waste that goes on within it - which rob not only those who pay tax for it, but also those who need it and must do with less than a decent service.
It's time for a change to our political landscape. If the Conservatives and New Labour have nothing more to offer us than neo-liberal economics and a chaotic free-for-all culminating in a huge wealth gap, serious levels of alcohol and drug abuse, child poverty, crime, anti-social behaviour, teenage pregnancy and social deprivation then it's time to get rid and move on.
I agree. But sadly the only way to power these days is by engaging with the real power brokers who can pay for one's marketing of a new message/party to replace the current system - and by so engaging have to water down any change to keep the status quo as it is. Take any new, minor party for example - they need wealthy backers to get their message out, and in the meantime the Murdoch press slaughter them with disinformation and outright libel. If one wishes to assume power, one has to sell out one's principles it would seem.
Even if one had a far superior system and policies on which to stand at election, one would lose. Because people believe what they read in the News of the World, The Sun et al.
In the meantime, I'm going to set up shop down the road, call myself Marco Del Pierro, sell Marco's 'finest authentic Italian ice creams' and charge £50 for a cone, dollop of lancashire ice cream and a flake (monkey's blood added for an extra fiver). The proceeds will be donated to a local school. The new Irony Tax.
Good luck (lick?) with that one. Having raised money for charity before, this sort of activity is a nightmare of red tape. And try getting public liability insurance in this day and age - there wont be any profits to donate after you've paid that.
Oh, and I'll come back to your wealth creation points when I have more time. Don't underestimate my business sense just because I'm only 33 and value social welfare. After leaving University I have worked in varying levels of business and sat more business/finance related exams than you can shake a stick at. As said, I'll come back to these points.
Hey, I'm only 38 NG. I only have 5 years on you - albeit most of that time running a business, and thinking radical thoughts on politics (much more radical than anything you have posted here!). You went to university? Wow, that makes me one of the socially deprived then, because I got a place and couldnt afford it! I did spend a fair few years studying nights and weekends whilst working though, so I would guess I had a sufficient grounding wherewith to continue to debate, what with paper qualifications and the best education that the real world could provide.
Please dont misunderstand me NG - I would like to see some big changes too, its just that it seems to me that the changes I would like to see are at variance with yours in their nature, rather than in their aims. But then, this the nature of politics it would seem - we all want the same things more or less, but disagree on how to achieve them.
E
|
|
|
|
