Brendan

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice to see that one of the things that got us > into the mess in the first place hugely overpriced > assetts (er, our homes) are being encouraged to > stay overpriced. Problem with that Quids is the huge portion of the Banking sector and subsequently our economy that is supported by how much money we owe ourselves (our banks) according to how much we say our houses are worth. So the amount of money a person has to owe a bank in order to have a roof over their head has gone up by 200% in the last 10 years and this was one of the major factors in the banking sector continuing to ensure economic growth. If this (completely sustainable and flawless cash cow) went away we would have to find something ridiculous like maybe producing something to make up for the short fall. Well that and it may well banjo the buy-to-let portfolio?s of our MPs. And we couldn?t have that.

After 8 years experience (at the coalface of how things work so to speak) I can tell you categorically that morality does not come into how our government and society are managed. Many people don?t see a problem with this or even see it as a good thing, citing reason like pragmatism, when in truth they just don?t like being taken to task on difficult questions about themselves or have an innate inability to empathise.

When the bloody hell did series 2 start and why wasn't I informed?

Yeah, it?s self defeating. People have to be able to pursue achievement and gain reward from it. It?s how we are programmed to function. It is one thing curbing exploitation and allowing everyone a fair go but saying that you can only reach a certain level and then you may as well just give up is hardly going to get the best out of people.

I think, as we all expected, it?s a budget designed to win votes. Trouble is most people only look at how it will affect them directly and not into the deeper implications for business. He wasn?t going to please everyone but he cleverly realised that there are a lot more voters out there who are worried about being able to house their families or afford to travel to work than there are voters who are worried about being able to leave more than ?1m to their kids or protect their bonuses from tax.

I'd take the train from Denmark Hill to Battersea Park and then walk through the Park.

Sure, I?ll go easy on them.

Here we go. Jessica?s had too much babycham again and is inciting the online world to revolution.

Not sure if I?m allowed satire in here but here you go: DOCTORS DEMAND CONCENTRATION CAMPS FOR THE POOR http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/doctors-demand-concentration-camps-for-the-poor-201003242586/

Erherm... username malfunction there dear.

Camberwell. That?s a good one. Hey everybody I?m going to, Camberwell, today. How's the weather in... Camberwell.

I don?t think it?s workable. What you can do is create conditions which discourage disproportionate remuneration but a specific maximum wage is (and this may sound odd considering the conversation) not really fair.

Pearson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't there an indie record shop in a basement > below the video shop on LL? There was but they no longer operate out of the shop for the reasons Jeremy pointed out. They now occupy a more virtual space (and a pub in Herne Hill a lot of the time): http://dreammachinerecords.co.uk/

Or Penge for that matter.

But it was made up for Only Fools and Horse. Someone from Walford told me that.

One option is a tax system which will benefit companies financially if they pay more equally. Properly managed of course so that there is a discrepancy and therefore incentive for people to achieve. This combined with a minimum living wage, taxation on personal property portfolios and inheritance and financial services regulation which ensures that people with less money don?t end up paying more just because they have less money should go someway to giving people a fair go and giving those that don?t bother the incentive to work towards something. I don?t think people who achieve should be denied reward but the discrepancy shouldn?t be such that the amount of money and property in their hands is denying someone else a decent lifestyle. There?s enough money in this economy for rich people to still be rich without completely screwing the poor in the process.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But isn't that what "government handouts" are for? > Aren't family/housing benefits a valid form of > wealth distribution? That?s a matter of personal political tastes. In my opinion a fair society should not have to rely on active socialism to counter act the effects of inequality. It just further differentiates between the haves and have-nots. Requiring benefit payouts and council accommodation in order to stop hard working people becoming destitute is just an admission that capitalism has failed through its own greed*. On some levels the whole thing is just a bribe which I am neither interested in paying or receiving. Whereas (and once again these are my personal political views) a properly managed Capitalist system can benefit everybody. *Notwithstanding perhaps the initial, valid at the time, reasons for the welfare state in the UK and the fact that we are living with the legacy. This is perhaps another facet to the issue.

The Fair pint campaign may be good example actually. As a pressure group they have every right to form a formal organisation, get public support and petition government who will (in a perfect world of course) look at both sides of the argument, seek independent advice and if necessary open a consultation process, pass a bill, amend an act or whatever. What has happened in this instance (and what generally happens) is that the party on the side of the argument who has the most cash to pay for the most influential lobbying has come out on top.

Apologies for the bad spilling in that post, I meant an entire industry not and. Obviously.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know. > > But companies should be allowed a say in decisions > that affect them. They aren't able to vote like > individuals are so perhaps lobbying is the > response to this. Wouldn?t it be better done through trade bodies which companies are members of and represent and entire industry and also have a degree of social responsibility/duty of care rather than on the behalf of a single industry player*? *Or I suppose in many cases a specific group of industry players who may be more interested in beating their competition than increasing the benefit their industry can bring to society.

Is that mayonnaise made for hair or mayonnaise made from hair?

???, without overanalysing the minutiae, it doesn?t take major powers of observation to look around at British society and see that it is hugely unequal in terms of access to education, housing, opportunity and that this is down to there being huge difference between the rich and poor and reinforced by society being stratified by class. The one thing I always notice when travelling around Britain is that areas are either really, really horrible or virtually oozing wealth. There is precious little in between. People from these different areas even speak different dialects regardless of the fact that they live next to each other. This serves as an example of how little movement between them or commonality of interest there is. To go back to the example of the bin man and the surgeon. I don?t think anybody is suggesting that a bin man should be paid the same as a surgeon. But if you look around you will see that while a surgeon will enjoy a very good lifestyle, probably own more than one property, pass on wealth to his children and have extensive freedom of movement around the world a bin man will not be able to put food on the table or even an inadequate roof over his head without government handouts. Despite working the same hours as the surgeon his energies will be completely taken up by trying to survive rather than being able to provide opportunity for his family. The conservative lobby would no doubt say that he isn?t taking responsibility for his life and deserves all he gets but then conveniently stick their fingers back in their ears if anyone suggests that while that sounds like a smashing thing for him to do he needs to be given the opportunity to do so. Here?s some food for though on the matter. In, Notes from a Small Island, Bill Bryson says something about meeting a train driver who speaks to him about some philosopher or other (I think a philosopher, I can?t remember the exact details, let?s just refer to this person as X). Anyway he makes the point that this is either a country where train drivers know about and discuss X or that this is a country where people who know about and discuss X end up driving trains.

Sweet Christ nooooo! I?m happy for you to keep the ceremonial mace and the powers that come with it but please don?t do that to me.

?stroo I?ve met many of the people on this forum and they are all either older or younger than me.

Well yeah, especially if you are a force in the market. Should this be a stronger influence than trade bodies and academic institutions have?