But the think is, it suited Gordon not to, it suited the consumers not to. All, including the banks, are to blame for the debt crisis in the West. Some people think that they can get out of debt by taking on more debt. Interesting, but I think it has more to do with promises that get people elected.
Sure, we have a big problem in our so-called democracies that politicians are not called to account for lying. Secrecy and outright lies are very pervasive and ultimately destructive of the system. I said in a different post, perhaps cabinet meetings should be televised so we see just a little more about what government is doing and why. Whenever politicians are able to hide what they do, then they hide their mistakes. If we never see their mistakes, then we can never adjust our voting behaviour accoordingly.
Few politicians right now seem to be saying we need to do something about the banks, except as a way to passify the voters without really doing anything. I dont see signs of anything being done, do you? So stop blaming the voters for making bad choices if no one ever explains the real issues to them.
Several people have tried to explain to you Dandy, why State expenditure is at best an inefficient form of wealth creation, and you have never accepted that view.
Several people have stated it as a fact, but no evidence has been produced to support it. In the absence of evidence it isnt a fact, its an opinion.
Someone posted that newspaper piece claiming it said civil servants were over paid. Well, that illustrated exactly your problem with regard to evidence. The piece when read carefully did NOT say civil servants were over paid. In fact it said they were paid less than comparable private sector workers, and the reason they got bigger average salaries than the private sector was because government employs better qualified people for skilled jobs rather than cheap labourers. Do you want uneducated people running the treasury?
I'll say that it is naive to think that people work hard when it makes no difference to their reward.
Sudy after study (and no, I couldnt give you references) and also common sense tells you that monetary reward has a diminishing return. Sure, man doubles your company earnings and you give him a £1000 bonus, which is 10% of his salary. Hes very excited. Pay him £1,000,000 and what does he care whether he gets a bonus or not? Its enough to retire on after 1 years work. So lie and cheat as much as you have to. once the year is over, nothing else matters. Doesnt matter what happens to the company in 10 years time, hes long gone. Not that guy on £10,000, he needs his salary to keep being paid, year after year. Big money payments actually break the link between the interest of the company and the interest of the employee.
Its like estate agents. i never understand why anyone thinks estate agents will try to get that extra £20,000 for your house. They have a choice, they can earn their percentage of £300,000 for very little work, or they can work very hard trying to flog your house for the same percentage of £350,000. What would be sensible? Why sell a couple of houses for £300,000 for little work rather than one at £350,000 for lots. So you reckon I just made an argument for big bonuses? No, I didnt. I said small bonuses (which are big compared to wages) make a difference to people who have small incomes. But over a certain level money doesnt matter any more. Just look at these rich people complaining they cannot get tax breaks for their charirtable giving. They have so much money they just give it away! It doesnt matter to them. Obviously people will take money if its going, and its not much work to tell people you just wouldnt do the job for less, but it is also nonsense.
since we started traiding with cows, chicks and pigs, later with money. we allways used somehow free markets (the fundamental detail of capitalism).and as more as we used it as more everyone could afford. - so it looks like the system proofed the last 10,000 years, that it works.
Really? I suggest to you that the system of trading cows as wealth has completely failed and any attempt to reintroduce it now would lead to us all starving to death. What you say is a demonstration of capitalism at work, i say is a slow evolution of how to do things better. Evolution works by making mistakes. A new idea comes along and people try it. It fails, they try a different one. Socialism in the form of social control of production and markets is with us to stay because it has been a huge success for the great bulk of the population. What we see now is a slow creep back to an elite rich class. This idea is again fast proving to be a big mistake and we will soon be doing something about it.
what do you think, would they have done, as soon as they got in contact with the next village? they traded, not out of pure good will, but cause everyone benefits... the fundamental element of capitalism
Hardly. Isnt capitalism about ownership? I dont recall any description of socialism or communism says that people cannot exchange goods. It doesnt make any difference whether the goods belong to the village or the individual. So inside this communist village, one man is a blacksmith and makes horse shoes. Another grows wheat. The blacksmith makes shoes he give to the farmer, and the farmer grows wheat he gives to the blacksmith. The label 'communist' only says something about how it is organsed, not whether an exchange takes place.
A social democracy is a political ideology that supports social rights for citizens, like univeral healthcare, universal education, fair wage and labor laws, etc. Many leftist parties and governments in europe claim to be, or are, this. Their parties are often called Socialist(in France) or Labor(in UK).
Except that from this perspective there isnt much difference between nominally left labour and nominally right conservative. All mainstram UK parties follow this policy.