We have sacrificed any concept of life lived on the alter of work and buying more things.

Helped by not having a load of fundamentalist neo-liberal nutters selling them down the river.

Quote: Mintball "Says RLFans' biggest Moaning Minnie. No. It is not. You do not avoid cutting disposable income by cutting pay. Cutting pay is utterly counterproductive for the wider economy. And yes – if the cost of living is rising by X%, then you ensure that people's pay rises by that at least. Except to fundamentalist neo-liberals, inflation is not the biggest problem on planet earth. See rlHa-Joon Chang on thisrl, for instance. It is very, very simple. Companies pay employees a ]living wagerl]. You have been told about this more than once. There is growing recognition amongst the likes of KPMG for the business case of doing exactly this. I suspect that, if you haven't remembered this or don't understand it by now, you never will.'" 1. Simply pathetic. As to moaning who puts everyone's ills down to the government / big business / Murdoch / the Murdoch Press / "casino" banks / greedy bankers/ etc etc? Never any mention of personal responsibilty. 2. Yes it is. 3/4. Companies cannot just pay more without accompanying increases in productivity. It just doesn't work. We live in a competitive world and if people pay themselves more without producing more then the business and the economy fails. We've seen the real world examples - remember the "British Disease" and more latterly the "German Disease?" See here for the German experience: ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een ... 471_en.htm

Quote: Mintball "Says RLFans' biggest Moaning Minnie. No. It is not. You do not avoid cutting disposable income by cutting pay. Cutting pay is utterly counterproductive for the wider economy. And yes – if the cost of living is rising by X%, then you ensure that people's pay rises by that at least. Except to fundamentalist neo-liberals, inflation is not the biggest problem on planet earth. See rlHa-Joon Chang on thisrl, for instance. It is very, very simple. Companies pay employees a ]living wagerl]. You have been told about this more than once. There is growing recognition amongst the likes of KPMG for the business case of doing exactly this. I suspect that, if you haven't remembered this or don't understand it by now, you never will.'" 1. Simply pathetic. As to moaning who puts everyone's ills down to the government / big business / Murdoch / the Murdoch Press / "casino" banks / greedy bankers/ etc etc? Never any mention of personal responsibilty. 2. Yes it is. 3/4. Companies cannot just pay more without accompanying increases in productivity. It just doesn't work. We live in a competitive world and if people pay themselves more without producing more then the business and the economy fails. We've seen the real world examples - remember the "British Disease" and more latterly the "German Disease?" See here for the German experience: ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een ... 471_en.htm

See my link on the post immediately following yours.

All you ever do, sunshine, is predict gloom and doom. There's a reason you've been referred to as a Chicken Licken for years. One only needs to look at the downright dumb title for this thread to see that you're a typical [iMail[/i-reading hysteric, who never actually has any positive suggestions to make.



No. It. Is. Not. Except to neo-liberal fundamentalist ideologues.

... from a body wedded to neo-liberal ideology, which was., indeed, pretty much enshrined by Maastrict (which Margaret Thatcher signed).

Could be that the cost of living is higher so the wages need to be higher? VAT is a similar level to the UK but unlike the UK food is subject to VAT etc

What you simplistic socalist nonsense fails to recognise is the obvious truth that everyone's wealth is contingent on successful and competive businesses. You allow those businesses to do well and there is a bigger cake for everyone to share in wages and public services. Yes, people need to have money to spend, something indeed I have said on here in connection with unequal ditribution of wealth and income) BUT you can not just dole it out when businesses are struggling. You need to accept the hard reality that higher wages and public services come off the back of someones hard work. Think industrial revolution throgh to Victorian England through to the 1920s, where the hard labour of the masses created vast wealth that in effect we are still living off as a nation. Think current China - conditions for hundreds of millions are very bad indeed but they are in the process of building wealth that may last them for generations and will probably pave the way for greater prosperity for their children. Think of all those first generation immigrants to our country and the USA who have worked long hours in hot kitchens and the like and effectively sacrificed their lives to create a more comfortable one for their children. You get nothing for nothing and nor should you.

Contrast the above sick, something for nothing, attitude from a middle class 'English' girl in her 20s on the train yesterday. A long, loud convesration in which she said, inter alia:

1. We (her and boyfriend / husband) have to be careful with money...
2. My parents are giving us £10,000 (I think towwards a property)....
3. Five minutes later, we are going to Thailand .....

Sickening!

So getting millions of people to work long hours in dangerous conditions for low wages with no concession to their health or wellbeing is acceptable because it will generate wealth for other people for generations to come ?

Have I summarised you correctly ?




I was listening someone on the radio last night waxing lyrically about Tower Bridge in London, how iconic it is, how beautiful it looks at the moment how eccentric it is when its only specification was to bridge the Thames but how poorer the landscape would be without it - and then they tagged on the end that 24 men died during its construction.

And that was just a normal building site.

Presumably those 24 men wouldn't mind because we can benefit now ?

The alternatives are that they (and their successors) remain subsistence farmers with all the stress and threat to life that involves or people like you pay much much more for your i-Phones and the like (and then moan they don't have enough disposable income).

I think your theory of economics, like a famous French brand of fizzy pop, is pschit*.


*I've declared my hand in this debate and there is no coming back from this position.

Think what you want.

the brand of fizzy pop is 'pschitt''

'pschit' is the onomatopoeic word for the sound made when the high pressured gaz is expelled through a smaller opening

'' is how it tastes...

interesting debate and i'm sure that I, like many find myself agreeing with a bit of each of what you are saying - not fence sitting, just unable to totally agree or disagree with the thoughts of yourself, Dally & Mintball & others

getting back to the original question - Is our Commie government losing the plot?
most people in France would agree that Sarkozy & co left the economy in relatively good nick when compared to the rest of europe but just wanted change plus our Carla didn't help the cause - about a month prior to the Hollande victory Sarko who was present at the G8 meeting signed up to the G8 idea that petrol prices must drop to encourage world growth and, lo and behold prices at the french pumps fell by about 6 or 7 centimes per litre a few days later
Mr Hollande comes to power and almost his first act in the first week in office was to introduce a new fuel levy to raise money and guess what ? the amount of tax added to pump prices was about 6 or 7 centimes.......

rlhttps://jerrychicken.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/pschitt/rl