Albeit, in that piece she's not an Amazon employee but engaged by Amazon through an agency, and notably doesn't get the same T&Cs as permanent staff.

This argument can be applied for Unions and workers too. Regulation is necessary for all walks of life but over regulation is as bad as under regulation. The EU is an example where over regulation has restricted its development and led to it being uncompetitive.



The banking crisis was not caused by under regulation. But it was certainly assisted by regulators who were not up to the job. In the UK we contrived to create the climate for disaster when Buster Brown (of no more boom and bust notoriety) moved from one regulator to three regulators. "Oh I thought you at the BofE were checking that"....."And I thought you at the FSA had a handle of that...oops!"

The term "Free Market" is misused. I doubt if anyone would want a totally free market with no rules & regulations whatsoever.

Most businesses would argue for a "Free Trade" market where there were no import/export duties and simple, clear and fair regulations that apply market wide and that could be easily enforced, otherwise there will never be a level playing field. This can be achieved within your own borders but is unlikley to gain agreement on a world wide basis.

However Governments and civil servants do not understand business and therefore they are not the best people to make these regulations on their own.

Capitalism is far from perfect but so far all the alernatives have failed. Profit and the private sector should be encouraged and we need a smaller state to reduce the burdon.

Greed is not a product of capitalism - it is a human condition. There will always be greedy businessmen, greedy shareholders (including the pension funds etc), greedy unions and greedy workers.

That said much could be done to target a fairer society. I would like to see the shareholder rules change for public companies so that the employees own a substantial percent of the shares - say 40%. This would curtail some of the greed of the top executives, reward the employees by incentive and prevent unwanted take overs (if say a 75% shareholder vote was required)

This is the classic phrase of businesses that want to lobby for special protections/subsidies/advantages from government.

Let me guess, government doesn't understand business so they need that business to provide advice on how to do it!

Personally I don't think the RFL understands rugby league and I would much rather they asked Simon Moran from Warrington what the rules should be, as at least he's a rugby man and you could be sure that the correct decisions on administering the game would be made.

Isn't that why Adrian Beecroft paid a few thousand to the Conservative Party to let him make up some bonkers suggestions for how to make more people depend on legalised loan sharks?

Yes, the politicising of policy making is a dangerous route to go down and I'm always suspicious of anyone that throws out the blanket statement "government doesn't understand business". Essentially government is trying to regulate the markets fairly and in an impartial manner and you always find that representatives of a particular sector are particularly keen to get involved in drawing up the regulations to suit them.

I suppose the more apt rugby analogy would be the one of coaches that constantly criticise the referees for not knowing what they are doing, and suggesting that they themselves referee the next match involving their team.

It is amusing to see the type of stuff businesses come out with when they engage with government. I remember once being in a meeting with some representatives of businesses in a sector that was receiving very large government funds and the purpose of the meeting I was in was to establish the right auditing and monitoring information in order to track how these government funds were being used and to be able to measure afterwards the outcomes of the firms that had been helped so that the government could commission an independent report to check whether the investment had been value for money. The whole attitude of the business representatives was aggressive and hostile - continually hectoring the government officials that government "simply didn't get it"....the businesses were "not interested in gathering information for a government box ticking exercise"...this was "about getting the money out of the door to the businesses to stimulate the economy". What this was effectively code for was, they did not want to have to audit and account for the government money they were receiving and they certainly didn't want anybody later evaluating on what it had been used for. Their whole agenda was getting the money signed over from government as soon as possible and then "government getting out of the way so they could get on with it". In the end they didn't get away with it because a fairly senior government official brought up the fact that they were going to be in receipt of a very large sum of funding and if they weren't prepared to properly report and monitor on it to allow value for money to be evaluated on behalf of the taxpayer, then the money wouldn't be forthcoming: at this point they reluctantly came on side.

But I did think it was illustrative of the hectoring attitude some parts of the business community have to government - they are happy to take huge sums of money from the taxpayer but then at the same time lecture government that they don't know what they are doing so the best thing is just hand over the money and leave it to them and it will magically be used best!

Amazon and it is not just about exploiting staff that resulting super-normal profits needs to be looked at. If they are in the tax avoidance bracket they are diddling you and me.



Only for the "best" jobs. Neither Apple nor Google are accredited living wage employers in the UK.



Why is this "needless bureaucracy"? PAYE which collects N.I. does not seem particularly onerous and N.I. isn't simply something that is re-distributed to those in work is it!

Marxisim/Socialism/Communism = NO

Who accredits the living wage? I doubt very much there is anyone working directly for those two companies who earns less than the living wage. They want the best talent - that doesn't come cheap.

How many people do you think are employed in re-distributing these funds? According to the prominent group of posters on here the government is subsidising big business through income support and other benefits - though no one has produced any actual fact to prove it. That would suggest that all the employers NI and corporation tax they pay isn't sufficient to cover the benefits paid to those in work never mind those out of work.

One of the points of the piece is that it is not just about her.

If you are interested you can Google it and you will find out. Notable proponents of it are Boris Johnson and KPMG. It is not something you will be able to dismiss as some sort of meaningless figure.



I doubt very much you are correct. Not everyone employed in these companies is involved in the technology side of it in the same way not everyone employed by KPMG is an accountant.



Don't be stupid. The fact people in work receive benefits which they qualify for due to low income is all the proof you need.



No it doesn't. Where did you dream up that bit of ridiculous nonsense?

Over 80% (88%, IIRC) of housing benefit is paid to people who are in work.

So, either wages are too low or rents are too high or a combination thereof.




rlIncrease in percentage of benefit claimants in work – 2012 reportrl

80%/88% or 17%?

Still too many, even if that lower figure is correct.

Are you happy with subsidising people who are working but cannot afford to live because pay is too low and/or the cost of housing insanely high?

Do you think foodbanks are a wonderful thing and that it's jolly nice of the Red Cross to hand out food parcels in the UK?

Do you consider this the only version of capitalism available or are there alternatives – or alternatives to capitalism altogether – that you think might work better for the majority?

TBH, one of the things that staggers me about the UK at present is the number of people who are apparently entirely happy to see their fellow citizens struggling – indeed, will blame them themselves for that – and perfectly ready to make excuses for anything that corporates and financial institutions do.

One wonders what the philosophical/ethical basis of that is.

So at the moment we have a regulated capitalist economy with gov commerical intervention in some areas by means of both subsidies (housing benefit, subs to franchises) and charges (a wide variety of taxes which charge different amounts depending on what they're for and where). With some variation in the levels of regulation and commercial intervention, this is pretty much the world wide model. Despite some short term ups and downs does seem to be delivering growth in living standards over the long term. Have we come up with a significantly different alternative through this, or just suggested minor tuning to the levels of regulation?

Personally, I don't have a revolutionary answer. I'd like to see a little less of gov. Certainly less central gov and more devolution to local gov. I see problems getting the right level of personnel in both areas, especially local gov though. The big problem I see with our govs is they are so tied into ideology and positioning against their opposition that they're backed into a position of having to follow an ideology regardless of whether it's the right thing or not.