Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is ‘just’ problematic.



How optimally do you think capitalism in the UK or Western developed nations more generally is working, by its own standards, in offering the whole of society appropriate incentives and opportunities to optimise economic performance at the whole population level? Ignoring concepts of fairness and equality (though their lack could be considered demotivating for many) and focusing purely on efficiency. You mention the many challenges faced by capitalism, and any system will have misalignments and distortions in the real world. What reforms do you see as desirable?

Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc.

Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc. Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?'" You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Quote ="Sal Paradise"Capitalism is working fine - is the average standard of living of the population as a whole is still increasing. Standard of living is just about how much you earn. Do you have improving medical facilities, clinical techniques and more effective pharma? Are the roads better, do we have access to better housing stock, do we have cheap clean utilities etc. Where are the challenges - a better spread of wealth, maintaining income post working age, the impact on the environment etc. Reduction in buying stuff - we seem to have a very disposable attitude to material items - look at the amount of clothes we all have?'" You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Quote ="Mild Rover"You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking'" I would agree of all the left-facing posters on here you are the most sensible.

Quote ="Mild Rover"You see, we’re not so far apart on some things. I’ve got poop to do now, but I might start a new thread based on this (quite long) article from the FT. https://www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d47 ... 7ebd53ab77 It makes a good point about renter/rent-seeking behaviours, imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking'" I would agree of all the left-facing posters on here you are the most sensible.

Although it would give the ecconomy a further shock, for the long term sustainably of the planet, we will either have to reduce the population and/or reduce consumption, which just doesn't fit with the capitalist model.
Remembering that the vast majority of the population in Asia, which is a huge and increasing percentage of overall population would generally be though of being at the poorer end of the financial spectrum and that they too will all aspire to the trappings of success ie house, car, improved standard of living etc, just where will the resources come from to provide this, not to mention the dreaded carbon emissions to produce the goods that they desire.
There needs to be a re think on how we ALL live our lives, something that will be at odds with the capitalist driven, self centred utopia that some of the more wealthy and aspirational members of the western world desire.

yay, our daily dose of wrencat envy politics...

I don't see anything envious in that post, and it's hardly political. Go troll somewhere else.

not trolling, just offering an opinion based on reality, not some idealogy that has failed numerous times. At least you haven't wished serious illness or death on anyone on this thread, yet.

Anyone who thinks that humans have anywhere near reached their limits of their potential is delusional. This planet has survived far greater issues that the current carbon-crisis - the idea that we all must return to some kind of new dark age is bonkers. In terms of natural resource there is an almost limitless supply and as we become more efficient we will use far less. Nuclear energy provides cheap clean and safe energy yet the ER folks think we should use wind and solar!!

This really is hilarious.
Of course human beings haven't reached their limits, not even close.
However, what they have done, in their few thousand years, on a planet that has been turning for millions of years, is, to be too successful at breeding and in turn, burning the planets resources at an increasing rate - only an utter fool can try to argue that point.
You are right about Nuclear Energy being cheap and clean but, the half life of the waste created is so utterly long lasting that very few governments are rushing towards this as a solution, with an increasing amount going for renewables.
We are also warming the planet to a point where some areas WILL become inhabitable, forcing the growing population into ever decreasing spaces.
This isn't opinion, it's absolute fact.

Yes, humans are supremely resourceful and they will find a myriad of new ways to live on the planet, regardless of how hollowed out it becomes.
However, we should be trying to leave the place in a better state than when we arrived and, right now, I dont think that as a species, we are anywhere close to that.

Maybe one day, we will find that elusive planet in outer space that is capable of supporting human life and then, bingo, problem solved.

I know that we have never met but, your views the value of life and people, especially those less fortunate than yourself, are a long way from mine and even you should be able to see that if we manage the planets resources better, EVERYONE benefits.

Alternatively, we can just carry on till the end and screw whoever comes next.

Firstly I am not disputing your comments - the timeframes are millions of years not tens.

Humans could never leave the planet in a better state than before evolution - it is simply not possible. Are you suggesting birth control so only a certain number of children can be born every year and a global maximum number of inhabitants i.e. population control?

I would be very interested in how you would propose to roll back the progress - do we stop making drugs so lifespans are reduced how will we live?

Millions of years seems extremely unlikely, the dreaded meteor is likely to happen long before that length of time passes, maybe even a virous that destroys the species ?

As for population control, quite possibly - it already exists in China ??

As for the world being a better place for the next generation. Despite the burning of some of the planets resources, I would suggest that broadly speaking, it has been "improved" for the next generation. However, the modern consume, consume, consume world, does risk the future.
Some people are able to see this and suggest a change of direction, while others are happy to "carry on regardless" and I do believe there will be a tipping point - probably to do with environmental issues and at this point there will very likely be a change in direction in how EVERYONE has to live their life.
I will be long gone but, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be bothered, unlike some.

I don't have an objection to population control - if you can only have one child so be it - might be an issue for certain religions that don't really want girls mind you.

I do agree we over consume as I put on another thread how many clothes do we all have - far too many. Humans are very adaptable and they will evolve to cope with changing conditions which was my point. The planet will cope it will also evolve as it has over millions of years.

The planet wont disappear but, human beings could or at least heavily reduce in number.
As for the "needs" of certain religions, it's probably best if we steer clear of that subject.

If we adopt a policy of only one child you can guarantee - early sex testing and mass abortions in certain areas of the world. That is not a racist comment its a reality that shouldn't be overlooked because it isn't "woke"

A small taste of the social care crisis I described is about to be visited upon us, as more and more frontline care workers self-isolate, and care homes are reduced to dangerous staffing levels as a result; I'm not sure what will happen, but in elderly services, it will most certainly mean people will suffer harm and in some cases, will die.

It is a real challenge - what can be done - closing schools will make this problem much worse too. Can the fitter of the older people do more?

Evidently not - since it's widely agreed that as of next weekend, over 70's will be told to self isolate for up to 3 months, regardless of their state of health.

So how do they get fed, their accommodation cleaned etc?

Because, like Corbyn, the fit and healthy will ignore the advice and carry on.

Are you asking about the residents of care homes, or those people living independently in the community?

Those that access the care sector either at home or in a facility?

Therein lies the question; we hear a lot about NHS staff, and rightly so, but as usual, the Care Sector is totally ignored - both in the grateful platitudes of Govt officials, and in the financial measures announced by the Chancellor yesterday.

I'm currently juggling with the needs of 450 vulnerable people, about 30% of whom have underlying health conditions that place them at further risk, and a workforce of 2000 who have been told to self-isolate at the first sign of a cough or raised temperature in either themselves or their immediate family. My clients need round the clock support, usually 1:1, in every aspect of their lives, including personal care - so I am teetering on the brink of some very dangerous situations which could develop quickly. I am certainly earning my corn right now - but the sector desperately needs help.

Making a video message for staff this morning, advising a board level decision to pay full salary during self-isolation; we hoped that Rishi Sunak would announce some assistance yesterday, but since it wasn't even mentioned, we're just doing it - and we'll count the cost later. Interesting conversations upcoming with our bank - the main thrust of which will be "you can shove your covenants up your ar5e."

The commercial world is ever evolving - I don't envy your situation - the banks would be in pretty hot water if they took this an opportunity to clear the decks!!

That would be the last thing on their minds - they fight to keep us away from PE on a regular basis, so I'm not too worried about that eventuality.

They will just have to swallow some revised forecasts based on these extraordinary circumstances - we need to retain our workforce, so we'll be paying them their full wage whilst self-isolating; eye-watering costs now, but far less damaging in the long run than losing them altogether - or having sick people come to work to avoid hardship, and infecting vulnerable people as a result.