2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Alf Bentley]

So any wealth created is generated by the employees, but when we had the crash that was all down to the banks and big business?

 

That's a "straw man" argument, Webbo - you create a false and ridiculous parody of someone else's argument, demolish it and proclaim yourself the victor! 

 

I didn't say either of the things you claim, did I?

 

- Wealth is generated by a combination of land/resources, capital and labour; it will be generated best under effective management (often with a long-term perspective), with a well-stewarded macro-economy & good-quality infrastructure (everything from buildings & transport facilities to education & training, communications etc.). Of course, there are then a whole series of arguments to be had over who should supply these different elements (public/private), on what terms, who should own them, if/how they should be regulated etc.

- The crash was mainly down to the banks (especially mortgage lenders & investment banking) and to excessively free-market governments worldwide failing to regulate the financial sector adequately (everyone from Reagan & Thatcher to Bush, Blair & Brown (supported by the Tories at the time); some blame, but less, can be attached to big business and to Joe Public for running up unsustainable debt and investing/trading in risky derivatives etc.

[Webbo]

That's a "straw man" argument, Webbo - you create a false and ridiculous parody of someone else's argument, demolish it and proclaim yourself the victor! 

 

I didn't say either of the things you claim, did I?

 

- Wealth is generated by a combination of land/resources, capital and labour; it will be generated best under effective management (often with a long-term perspective), with a well-stewarded macro-economy & good-quality infrastructure (everything from buildings & transport facilities to education & training, communications etc.). Of course, there are then a whole series of arguments to be had over who should supply these different elements (public/private), on what terms, who should own them, if/how they should be regulated etc.

- The crash was mainly down to the banks (especially mortgage lenders & investment banking) and to excessively free-market governments worldwide failing to regulate the financial sector adequately (everyone from Reagan & Thatcher to Bush, Blair & Brown (supported by the Tories at the time); some blame, but less, can be attached to big business and to Joe Public for running up unsustainable debt and investing/trading in risky derivatives etc.

Fair enough, it was a little facetious.

[Alf Bentley]

Fair enough, it was a little facetious.

 

No probs. I think the truth is that we all enjoy these little arguments or we wouldn't get involved in them!

 

Incidentally, I might be wading in at least partly supporting your comments elsewhere re. NHS incompetence (unbelievable series of cock-ups in recent months, with massively damaging consequences). I'll need to calm down about that first, though.

[MPH]

Fair enough, it was a little facetious.

 

Off topic, but thats the shortest word in the English language that contains all the vowels in the correct order...

 

 

Had everyone stumped at a dinner party with that all night

[Benji]

Off topic, but thats the shortest word in the English language that contains all the vowels in the correct order...

 

 

Had everyone stumped at a dinner party with that all night

Please let me know if in some walk of life we are proposed to sit next to each other on the seating plan.

[Webbo]

Off topic, but thats the shortest word in the English language that contains all the vowels in the correct order...

 

 

Had everyone stumped at a dinner party with that all night

That's a very abetious thing to do.

[MPH]

Please let me know if in some walk of life we are proposed to sit next to each other on the seating plan.

 

 

 

 

 

oh you'll be in for an excited flight!!!

[Benji]

That's a very abetious thing to do.

I am definitely not the only person who has or will Google that.

[MPH]

That's a very abetious thing to do.

 

 

not in the Oxford English dictionary.

 

[sphericalfox]

That's a very abetious thing to do.

 

You could at least tried using a real word Webbo. Or editing it like young Lee does. 

[Collymore]

it's a shame we can't have different parties in charge of different areas in government. I agree with most of the parties on certain aspects of their polices but no party for all of them.

 

I'd vote "mix and match" 

[MooseBreath]

(3) You: Whereas Moose sees all wealth as generated by capital / entrepreneurs and not by the labour force, your experience is that all employers value the contribution of workers in adding value to their business; Me: That's true of many good employers, but not of bad employers, who think only of the short-term bottom line and exploit staff terms & conditions to the max, hence the need for better employment protection.

Without people willing to take on risk with their own time and capital there are no jobs. The Labour force contributes but takes on a much lower share if the risk and therefore, completely fairly, takes a lower share of the reward. You can't have one without the other but if we're ranking them in order of importance I'd put those who take on the most risk at the top.

[MPH]

it's a shame we can't have different parties in charge of different areas in government. I agree with most of the parties on certain aspects of their polices but no party for all of them.

 

I'd vote "mix and match" 

 

 

i'd even go for devolved regional powers. or at least more of them

[Webbo]

You could at least tried using a real word Webbo. Or editing it like young Lee does. 

[sphericalfox]

 

yup. it's a good one too.

[Guest MattP]

The Sun reveals names of 68 Labour MP's who have employed people on zero hour contracts in the recent past. Ed Balls is on it

 

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/if-zero-hours-contracts-are-so-bad-how-come-these-68-labour-mps-used-them/

 

Ed Miliband today blasted David Cameron and big business over zero hours contracts – and pledged to stick up for ordinary workers who are being “exploited.”

Speaking in Yorkshire on Wednesday, the Labour leader raged: “Less than a week ago, you may have heard the Prime Minister say that he couldn’t live on a zero hours contract. Well, I couldn’t live on a zero hours contract either. I’ve got a simple principle – if it is not good enough for us, it’s not good enough for you and it’s not good enough for Britain.

“That’s the way I will run our country. One rule for all.”

Except there’s one small problem for Ed.

SunNation can today reveal nearly 70 Labour MPs have employed workers on “zero hours” contracts over the past two years.

That’s nearly a quarter of the Labour parliamentary party.

The damning list of 68 includes Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, Lucy Powell, Labour’s elections chief and Karen Buck, Ed Miliband’s parliamentary aide.

 

[Guest MattP]

Meanwhile Captain Bellend strikes again, rip up your polling card and set yourself free

 

[Benji]

I think people are getting confused here between Zero-Hours Contracts and Labour Zero-Hours Contracts.

[MooseBreath]

The Sun reveals names of 68 Labour MP's who have employed people on zero hour contracts in the recent past. Ed Balls is on it

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/if-zero-hours-contracts-are-so-bad-how-come-these-68-labour-mps-used-them/

Omg dey is so exploited what about the job security omg

[Jimothy]

I don't thnk the problem is zero hour contracts themselves, it's the way both sides see them as a black and White issue. The right see them as perfectly fine and reasonable, whilst the left see them as evil and exploitative. In reality they work well for some people in certain situations and give them the flexibility they need in their life, whilst they aren't right for others and allow employers to exploit them. I honestly think the Tories aren't doing enough to tighten up on them, but Labour are going to far by trying to get rid of them completely, when really the answer is probably somewhere in between.

[Jon the Hat]

Create more jobs and employers wont be able to take the piss with Zero hour contracts.  Sorted!

[Buce]

The Sun reveals names of 68 Labour MP's who have employed people on zero hour contracts in the recent past. Ed Balls is on it

http://www.sunnation.co.uk/if-zero-hours-contracts-are-so-bad-how-come-these-68-labour-mps-used-them/

Did they offer any evidence for this, Matt?

After all, this is the same newspaper that faked an interview with the widow of the officer who died in the Falklands campaign, lied about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough....

[sphericalfox]

Did they offer any evidence for this, Matt?

After all, this is the same newspaper that faked an interview with the widow of the officer who died in the Falklands campaign, lied about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough....

 

I doubt it, and wouldn't be surprised if the links are tenuous at best for some of them. As I understand the Labour party is not banning nor against these contracts, but are wanting to provide better terms and security for employees. This list is meaningless.

[Guest MattP]

Did they offer any evidence for this, Matt?

After all, this is the same newspaper that faked an interview with the widow of the officer who died in the Falklands campaign, lied about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough....

I don't know I don't work for them, I'm sure we'll see some swift denials.

It would be funny, even funnier as Rincewind's MP is one of them.

[Alf Bentley]

Without people willing to take on risk with their own time and capital there are no jobs. The Labour force contributes but takes on a much lower share if the risk and therefore, completely fairly, takes a lower share of the reward. You can't have one without the other but if we're ranking them in order of importance I'd put those who take on the most risk at the top.

 

In a theoretical world of early, pioneer capitalism, your argument has a lot of merit. It still has merit for small businesses, venture capitalists etc.

 

How much risk is being taken and by who at big businesses, though? There are exceptions, of course, but a large proportion of big business capital is owned by institutions like pension funds and insurance firms, isn't it? How much bold, risk-taking entrepreneurialism is going on when some pension fund employee flicks a switch to shift some funds from Amazon shares to BP shares on behalf of clients who often don't even know what their pension funds are invested in?

 

Board members or senior managers will often have a personal stake at risk by having a big shareholding, I suppose, but they'll often have risen to that position through their value as management employees (i.e. labour) at that firm or elsewhere. In other cases, people may simply have inherited their capital, so I'm not sure what entrepreneurial merit that bestows on them. Plus, the quality of your labour force (including managers) may have more impact on the success of your business than decisions taken by those who own the capital....the success (or not) of Pearson, Morgan & co has a pretty big impact on the business success of Leicester City.

 

Surely the bold, risk-taking capitalists who merit reward are to be found more in the small business sector and in venture capitalism? In which case, maybe you're batting for the wrong side, Moose, and should be standing firm and square behind the red banner of the party of small business - the Labour Party:  http://press.labour.org.uk/post/111066961689/labours-plan-to-back-britains-small-businesses 

 

In all seriousness, if any unbiased person with a good knowledge of small business management has an informed view on Labour's policies for small business, fire away. My knowledge is inadequate, but it's an interesting policy stance, not bothering too much about upsetting big business, but focusing on the small business sector....