Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 31 July 2012, 21:20:56
-
I wonder what his and his wife's great intellect and wisdom would have made of the current global depression and the Eurozone?
A couple of links: The first he provides the introduction to a very good and inspiring essy written in 1958 by Leonard Read, called "I pencil". I sure Nickbat and Albs will 'get' the essay, but it might give Opti and Cem a dose of the heebie jeebies. ;) :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction, by Milton Friedman (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction, by Milton Friedman)
The second is a list of quotations, which shows he also had a great sense of humour.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html)
-
::) will delay the readings until tomorrow.. my right eye start flickering :(
-
I wonder what his and his wife's great intellect and wisdom would have made of the current global depression and the Eurozone?
A couple of links: The first he provides the introduction to a very good and inspiring essy written in 1958 by Leonard Read, called "I pencil". I sure Nickbat and Albs will 'get' the essay, but it might give Opti and Cem a dose of the heebie jeebies. ;) :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction, by Milton Friedman (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction, by Milton Friedman)
The second is a list of quotations, which shows he also had a great sense of humour.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html)
"...the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government"
Amen to that! :y
-
I wonder what his and his wife's great intellect and wisdom would have made of the current global depression and the Eurozone?
A couple of links: The first he provides the introduction to a very good and inspiring essy written in 1958 by Leonard Read, called "I pencil". I sure Nickbat and Albs will 'get' the essay, but it might give Opti and Cem a dose of the heebie jeebies. ;) :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction, by Milton Friedman (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction, by Milton Friedman)
The second is a list of quotations, which shows he also had a great sense of humour.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/milton_friedman.html)
"...the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government"
Amen to that! :y
The Pikey translation for you Nick.... :)
"...the basic idea that human freedom required someone else's private property, free (bare knuckle) competition, and severely limited government (ie on a bank holiday so we can get the diggers in.." :-*
-
Lucky I'm not a Pikey, then, Tigger! ;) ;D
-
Excellent read Rod.I will keep that article in my favs.to use as a method of explanation to "simplistic thinkers". :y
-
"None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil performed his task because he wanted a pencil. Some among them never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted—goods and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted. Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing the pencil."
seems like he worked his lesson on Marx very good ::)
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself"
good time for a question.. does anyone now think the market is free ? just think how much you pay for fuel.. cartels decide , not the even the govts and not the ordinary citizen..
and must admit I have never seen such an abused word like "freedom" just to start wars to finance western economies
"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
wrong .. capitalism means banking/money collected in few private hands (as history prooved).. which will never let its force out of hand.. expecting a different behaviour is against the nature of power .. :D
"I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves,
they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal"
Ugh.. ??? someone must give him some lessons about bio-chemistry and addiction of human brain nerve system.. :(
thats a shameful ignorant idea!
"Inflation is taxation without legislation. "
yep.. thats correct!
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect
the consumer from the government"
yep.. thats correct too.. he is surprising me! ;D :D
"Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and
make the combination worthless"
yep.. because the brain controlling the writing hands are worthless :P
here is some critics about him
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650)
ps: Sorry Albitz :-[
-
seems like he worked his lesson on Marx very good
Except with Marx all of the co-operatives are owned by the state with them imposing conditions, payments and if such a co-operative can exist. So you have NO economic freedom and very little personal freedom.
No mother-in-law did not enjoy working in a Russian collective for ZERO pay (or 100% taxation) take your pick the result is the same. So why have a job you may ask? Their productivity scheme was if you don't have a job and clock in and out everyday then you go to jail, which usually meant a Gulag in Siberia. There was no incentive to work hard, so you did as little as possible and stole anything you could get away with as a form of payment.
This is why socialism does not work as it is a top down authority which imposes its will on society. So the people at the top have to be all seeing and knowing in what people want and need and invent and this is of course impossible, so you get very inefficient allocation of capital and resources, which is why all purely socialist countries end up getting poorer and poorer. Think North Korea and Cuba as current examples. >:( >:( >:(
Where as capitalism is bottom up approach where an individual can come up with an idea, allocate capital and resources and sell the end result. But to be sucessful, they need to make people aware of the product or service, through advertising and marketing and it has to be an attractive product or service at the right time, place, price and quality to sell. This leads to individuals or small groups allocating capital and resources which is much more efficient. It is also why communist countries like China have introduced capitalism as it works better. :y :y :y
good time for a question.. does anyone now think the market is free ?
Yes and no, the freedom to create your own business is there, but many corporations have bought competition, where monopoly market share is set too high at 25%. Four companies does not provide enough competition. If we had in the UK the big 10 banks instead of the big 4, then they would not be too big to fail. Saving banks from bankruptcy is a perversion of capitalism as badly run business should be bought at a low price and management kicked out or should fail and if bought senior management kicked out again. No business should be able to go over 10% market share by buying other companies, but this have to be agreed as part of an international trade agreement. Most near monopolies ultimately fail as they become complacent and badly managed. This is currently happening to Microsoft, Nokia and RIM all of whom may not survive or only as a minor player and will also probably happen to Apple in the long term. When any business makes more than 10% profits, this then makes it an attractive proposition for rivals to invest in producing competitive products. Apple is trying to keep their monopoly and market share through patent wars.
International cartels like oil, the best way to defeat them is to development independent resources or alternative technologies which the US is currently working hard on at the moment with shale oil and gas resources, countries are becoming more energy efficient and developing alternatives, like bio-fuels.
wrong .. capitalism means banking/money collected in few private hands (as history prooved).. which will never let its force out of hand.. expecting a different behaviour is against the nature of power ..
In the UK 60% of employment and over 50% of GDP is through SMES. These are businesses that range from self-employed to businesses with up to 50 employees. 80% of SMES stop trading or go bust withing 5 years, so it is not an easy route, which with ever increasing EU and UK regulation (by socialists) and high taxation (by socialists) is killing small enterprise, which is a major reason why the wealth gap between top 1% and the other 99% in the UK and Europe is getting bigger. The 99% through regulation and taxation are being starved of capital to start new businesses and due to regulation the start up costs are forever increasing, with high taxation meaning the risks v rewards make it just not worth it. So they cannot get towards being one of the 1%. This is why my next business where I need to employ people again will not be in the UK or EU.
EU and national socialism is killing Western European enterprise, and only allowing crony corporate capitalism to survive. Many EU directives are aimed at stopping through regulation small business from surviving, so their favoured corporations, with their lobbing treats survive. This is not a failure of capitalism but of democracy. In most Presidential / Government democracies, the elected Government define and pass laws that are rubber stamped by the president. In the EU the UNELECTED president and council of ministers define and implement laws that are rubber stamped by the EU parliament. This is why is is known as the EUSSR as there is no real democracy and much corruption, just like the old USSR. I hope for your and Turkey's sake that you never join EU.
A friend of mine is having a nightmare time under the new EU commercial vehicle directive and laws, where he is a lorry owner / driver with his own operators licence, VOSA who inspected his vehicle found, a rear stop lamp bulb had blown and the brake air-pressure gauge was faulty, although brakes were perfect. He has now had much paperwork to complete and interviews to keep his operators licence and now he is on VOSA's radar he is having his lorry randomly inspected by them on average once every two weeks, which means he losses a days work. I can't see Eddie Stobart having the same problems.
-
naswers and comments tomorrow :y
-
Bit of an irony that Friedman believed in small government and laissez-faire economics, yet came up with the system that makes it easier for Governments to collect income tax. ie PAYE or The Withholding Tax as it's known in the US. ::)
-
seems like he worked his lesson on Marx very good
Except with Marx all of the co-operatives are owned by the state with them imposing conditions, payments and if such a co-operative can exist. So you have NO economic freedom and very little personal freedom.
No mother-in-law did not enjoy working in a Russian collective for ZERO pay (or 100% taxation) take your pick the result is the same. So why have a job you may ask? Their productivity scheme was if you don't have a job and clock in and out everyday then you go to jail, which usually meant a Gulag in Siberia. There was no incentive to work hard, so you did as little as possible and stole anything you could get away with as a form of payment.
This is why socialism does not work as it is a top down authority which imposes its will on society. So the people at the top have to be all seeing and knowing in what people want and need and invent and this is of course impossible, so you get very inefficient allocation of capital and resources, which is why all purely socialist countries end up getting poorer and poorer. Think North Korea and Cuba as current examples. >:( >:( >:(
Where as capitalism is bottom up approach where an individual can come up with an idea, allocate capital and resources and sell the end result. But to be sucessful, they need to make people aware of the product or service, through advertising and marketing and it has to be an attractive product or service at the right time, place, price and quality to sell. This leads to individuals or small groups allocating capital and resources which is much more efficient. It is also why communist countries like China have introduced capitalism as it works better. :y :y :y
[
Honestly these smell like they are all collected from a cold war propoganda speech.. shallow and lacking the most important dimensions ; time(events) and conditions ..
and must add also I grow up hearing those horror stories which in one day I discovered that these are far from reality let alone being a tangent..
I think the problem with western or western influenced communities is that their perception is warped through education by all means which are politically effected and designed..
even today when you use search engines and check for a specific political/historical subject if you dont know different languages you may hardly reach the complete picture..
I think now its time to remind some scientific precautions: when you examine a specific event and a fact, you have to examine all previous-post events and surrounding facts/conditions to determine/evaluate and conclude for the whole picture.. or else your results will be far from objectivity and distorted ..
I do believe also its essential to point that a scientific idea dont belong to any specific political view.. its duty is to find and extract realities regardless of personal interests..
Now if we look in the history, Marxs economic and social theories are prooven to be correct and no later theories were able to proove the reverse.. reason is simple: he is a strong eyed clever observer and living in complete poverty.. all his observation and conclusions are objective and have no fear of supporting the rich-power class..
as he pointed out capitalism will have always repeating periodical crisis -as he have seen nowadays- the net sum (obviously money flows in both upwards and downwards direction) of flow of accumulated money is always (bigger) in upwards direction in class pyramide..
which will lead to depleted or no reserve of money in lower classes so re-organization or artifical pumping of money becomes a must.. ( I can not go in the details of das capital here ) these theories/obervations are not dependant on any specific country or a group or region.. Now Russia becomes our subject as you focus specially on it..
Interestingly, although socialist theories are more easily applicable on rich western countries -leading classes were so rich and globally powerful that they never permit it to happen-although parties with imitating names and sayings do exist that are both internally and externally far from being socialist- , real experiments have to be done with poor nations which have no other alternative..
-
Continued from above..
Looking at our specified example, Russia during Czar era mostly shown to be having high growth rates in production is caused by immense population growth .. But actually whole country was starving despite it was an agricultural country lacking heavy industry.. Rich classes living in luxury and blind to realities of lower classes.. So cant stop the 1917 revolution although west give reaction immediately and rushed all its economic and military power to help the remains Czar/Tzar forces..
So the civil war in Russia take 5 years of time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War) damaging the remains of Russia after the first world war..During that period Russian production declined dramatically (if there was left any)
"Basically Russia came into the 20th century as an extremely oppressed country that was ruled by the Czars(Tzar). Russia was a feudal dictatorship. The people of Russia were horribly oppressed, poor, starving, cold, and without any real direction or hope. Essentially, Russia had never undergone the liberal revolutions that took place in Europe (starting with the French Revolution), which had established liberal democracy and capitalism there. Russia remained as one of the last vestiges of Medieval European society.
Through acts of “terrorism” and rebellion a small group of revolutionaries overthrew the Czars. Then Russia went into a stage of anarchy and turmoil, out of which the Bolshevik Party of Lenin emerged as the dominant political force.
Lenin and many of the Bolsheviks were not in Russia at the time of the Revolution. Some of them were from Russia originally but had left, while some were not from Russia at all. They were all Marxists and socialist revolutionaries that had been living in Europe studying science, economics, sociology, history, etc. from a Marxist perspective. The Bolsheviks did not cause the overthrow of the Russian government; they came in after the overthrow with the plan of putting Marxist revolutionary theory to practice. Their plan from the beginning was to develop Russia in such a way as to spread social revolution throughout Europe and eventually the world. The biggest political opponents of the Bolsheviks in Russia, aside from the Czars, were the Mensheviks and Social Democrats, both Marxist groups who also supported Socialism, but were less militant. What is important to understand about the Russian Revolution is that some of the biggest opponents to the Bolsheviks were other Communists. The "brand" of Communism that was promoted by the Bolsheviks was by no means representative of all Communist ideology. Bolshevik ideology was the least tolerant and most revolutionary form of Marxist ideology. "
-
continued from above..
"In addition to launching an attack on private property they did something else that upset countries around the world, and that was to make public all of the secret information that was contained in the Russian government files. They exposed all of the secret treaties that the Russian Czars had made with various countries as well as other information that the Russian government had acquired through its own intelligence operations. They did this because they felt that humanity should progress through honesty and they wanted to expose the corruption of other capitalists countries as well as of the old Russian regime.
These actions only added to the international opposition to the situation in Russia. After World War I was over 21 countries from all over the world, including America, began supporting a counter-revolution in Russia in an attempt to stop the Bolshevik revolution. At this time Russia entered a stage of Civil War between the Reds and the Whites. "
"In 1918 American President Woodrow Wilson sent 12,000 American troops to Russia to fight on the side of the Czars against the Red Army. Interestingly, the American forces in Russia suffered more attacks and problems from the White Army than from the Red Army. The American commanders in the field reported that the Czarist reign of terror was far more horrific and disturbing that the actions of the Reds. The American forces also discovered that the vast majority of Russians sympathized with the Bolsheviks and supported the revolution. In the end, the American troops were brought home without any fanfare, and the ordeal was considered one of the most ill-conceived interventions in American history up to that time. Major General Graves, who lead the expedition, was accused of being a "Red sympathizer" and was generally disgraced after the event. "
from
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/russian_revolution.htm (http://rationalrevolution.net/war/russian_revolution.htm)
-
continued from above..
After the the civil war era, Lenin died at 1924.. And Stalin got the power and cleared his opponents one by one..
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Josef_Stalin_gain_power (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Josef_Stalin_gain_power)
all these are correct.. but there is another side of the medalion.. Russia still was in poverty , its citizens starving and there were no heavy industry with the oncoming war winds over the russia..So he took serious precautions to feed the country and develop industry.. And I'm sure whoever in that period was in power will take similiar precautions without doubt because simply there wont be any talk of freedom where cities are starving..
In 1928 Stalin had said:
"Agriculture is developing slowly, comrades. This is because we have about 25 million individually owned farms. They are the most primitive and undeveloped form of economy We must do our utmost to develop large farms and to convert them into grain factories for the country organised on a modem scientific basis."
Stalin’s description of the state of Russia’s farming was very accurate. There was barely any mechanisation, the use of scientific measures was minimal and peasant farmers produced usually for themselves and the local area. This was not good enough for Stalin.
To change all this and update Russia’s agriculture, Stalin introduced collectivisation. This meant that small farms would be gathered together to form one large massive one. These bigger farms would be called collectives. As they were large, there was every reason to use machinery on them. The more food that could be grown the better as the cities and factories could suitably be fed. Hungry factory workers would not be in a fit enough state to work effectively. If this happened the Five Year Plans would not succeed.
If this happened then Russia would not advance.
The key to collectives would be the use of science and machinery. Tractors stations were created to hire out tractors, combine harvesters etc. Collectives were up and running by 1930 when over 50% of all farms had been grouped together.
Lenin had given the peasants their land in 1918. By 1924, even the poorest peasant owned land. There were those who had worked hard and done well. These were richer peasants and were called kulaks. This group in particular was very much against collectivisation. They felt that their hard work was being taken advantage of. Stalin tried to turn to poorer peasants against the kulaks. In 1928, he said at a speech:
"Look at the kulaks farms : their barns and sheds are crammed with grain. And yet they are holding onto this grain because they are demanding three times the price offered by the government."
However, many peasants, ‘rich’ or poor, were against collectivisation. The land that Lenin had given them was now being taken away by Stalin. Villages that refused to join a collective had soldiers sent to them and the villagers were usually shoot as "enemies of the revolution" or "enemies of the people". The land, now freed from ownership, was handed to the nearest collective farm.
from
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivisation.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/collectivisation.htm)
and for a detailed reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union)
-
continued from above...
so we can say that picking random pictures from a communities life and criticisng them with an enemy point of view wont bring us the complete picture about truth..
Briefly Soviet production after second world war rocketed and their production rate increases were much higher than the western countries..
Their avg growth rate in industry was %10..and finally their system bring a poor agriculture nation to a point where they become the second powerful nation at early 1950 years.. if at this point you are not convinced that socialism does not work , just look at their technology and power today..
I can go for more details to enlighten the debate subject.. But my limited English and no knowldge on Russian language makes the subject hard to search and time consuming.. (although on-line language translators help its another problem)
so I'll cut here.. :y
-
Interesting and enjoyable thread - well done to the contributors. 8) :-*
-
Interesting and enjoyable thread - well done to the contributors. 8) :-*
:) :y :y
-
You make the assumption that I know nothing about Russian history, where I have read quite a lot of history books on the country and their Communist leaders including Stalin. Some have been written by western authors, some Russian translations from Russian authors, where since the fall of communism their archives have been made available to many historians.
Part of learning about Communist Russia, has been talking to my Ukrainian wife's family about their lives under communist rule. To dismiss what my mother-in-law and my wife has told me as cold war propaganda, where they are Ukrainian and lived under these conditions and have told me in their own words, I find a bit insulting to be honest as my wifes family were there and experience life first hand. If they had said it was a brilliant system, that is what I would tell you but it wasn't. The only thing they say were better under communism than now is free health care and less corrupt higher education system. Almost everything else is better. Now this a a rural area, so things may have been different in the cities. I can only report what I have been told.
Russia went from Czar feudal society to Bolshevik feudal society. Like I have stated above, in a socialist society you have no rights or freedom as you belong to the state.
In the Czar feudal system you did well if you were under the patronage of the Czar as a favoured person. The same was true under the Bolsheviks. If you were a member of the communist party and had the right connections (patronage), you could do very well. For most other people it was grinding poverty.
In the late 1940's / early 1950's if Russia was doing so well, why were there no shoes in many parts of the Ukraine, my mother-in-law along with most of the village children (exceptions were favoured members or senior people in local communist party under party patronage). My mother-in-law if she was lucky when in winter weather, she had cardboard on her feet in winter temperatures often -25degC or lower. My wife often talks about empty shops in the communist era and as soon as you heard something had arrived like tins of fish, all locals would rush there and queue for hours, sometimes days, to get a few cans before the shop was empty for another 6 months. We are talking about the 1970's and 80's here. Many things my wife only saw like chocolate, soap, shampoo, was when here older brothers were conscripted into the army, where they could purchase such item either because they were posted to a big city or from a military only shop. They were reliant on feeding themselves from their 0.4 hectare (1 acre) smallholding. The only people with cars were party officials or black market criminals, which later formed the core of the Russian mafia.
In 1932-33 Stalin and his Communist party caused an artificial famine, due to resistance to collectivization. They staving 5-8m of the Ukrainian population to death, a good way to treat people and run a country? Yes / No? My wife's family were very lucky to survive as many in her village died, where they were right in the middle one of the worst affected area. My wife's grand mother only lived as they had cherry trees on their smallholding (all their crops and livestock had been confiscated, and if a search revealed any food, the family disappeared, either shot or sent to a gulag in Siberia.) and they kept bees. They just survived by eating cherry tree leaves and honey. Fortunately, they were an unusually small family for that time, there were only two children, if it had been a bigger they would not have survived and my wife would never had existed.
http://holodomorct.org/ (http://holodomorct.org/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%931933)
If you read this text, in the history section you will see 'Uman' mentioned, which is the nearest city 30 miles (45km) from my wife's village. My wife went to university there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
In the Great Patriotic War there were more Ukrainians killed per head of population than from any other region of the USSR, where Stalin always considered Ukrainian nationalism a threat, so used them as cannon fodder,. It was normally Ukrainians that cleared minefields by walking across them to lead an attack. The Nazis were no better when they occupied the land, as they wanted to clear it of the indigenous population except for a few slaves to be used by Germans and install their own population. Jew were exterminated. In my wife's local town Talne the Jews were all shot by the Nazis and buried in a mass grave. Once a resistance movement had formed, the Nazis used to kill 100 of the local population every time a German soldier was killed. My wife's grand father was in the red army and was killed in 1944.
Modern Ukraine still has many problems as a legacy of the communist era, but it is slowly improving. Political corruption and patronage is still a major problem, along with the old soviet system where you normally had bribe an official to get anything done.
-
Rods , my wife is Romanian and her story is no different than your wife.. and she told me that most of their animals and farm lands have been taken.. yes thats true.. and the links I give approve that..
but problem is there is a different big picture that which they can tell only their part.. :-\
and its not correct to say that I assume you dont know Russian history.. the paragraph you supplied only showed a part of picture which alone is lacking many facts..
Now its correct to say Czar feudal society but Bolshevik feudal society wont be correct as they created a large heavy industry and defeated a heavy industrial country like Germany even when their republic was so young..
the days of Stalins power is long gone.. he was a violent dictator .. no doubt .. but blaming the socialist system regarding those events is unjustifiable..
besides just look in the history of capitalism.. for how much money children was working at the factories and for how many hours when the industrial revolution hit UK.. there are many examples in history that I can give .. ;)
-
.....But those who were working in factories in the early days of the industrial revolution here,had previously been peasants who were impoverished,often starved if they had a poor crop,had no access to any kind of medical treatment,education etc.
As the industrial revolution progressed many factory owners had a philanthropical attitude to their workers and local communities.
The company I worked for throughout the 1980,s was founded in the Victorian era by a capitilast.The working conditions would have been poor by todays standards,but he built hundreds of houses for the workers as well as a library,school,etc.etc. and in fact the whole village grew up around this factory.The infrastructure created at that time mostly remains to this day,and the workers cottages (one of which I lived in and later bought) now sell for around £175,000.
This wasnt a rare occurrence,it was quite common up and down the country.If it hadnt been for the industrial revolution we wouldnt have the educated,affluent population that we have today.We would still mostly be living off the land and be truely backward,ignorant people. ;)
-
.....But those who were working in factories in the early days of the industrial revolution here,had previously been peasants who were impoverished,often starved if they had a poor crop,had no access to any kind of medical treatment,education etc.
As the industrial revolution progressed many factory owners had a philanthropical attitude to their workers and local communities.
The company I worked for throughout the 1980,s was founded in the Victorian era by a capitilast.The working conditions would have been poor by todays standards,but he built hundreds of houses for the workers as well as a library,school,etc.etc. and in fact the whole village grew up around this factory.The infrastructure created at that time mostly remains to this day,and the workers cottages (one of which I lived in and later bought) now sell for around £175,000.
This wasnt a rare occurrence,it was quite common up and down the country.If it hadnt been for the industrial revolution we wouldnt have the educated,affluent population that we have today.We would still mostly be living off the land and be truely backward,ignorant people. ;)
:) :y :y
-
Caring Capitalism Cem.It can be done. :y :y
-
Caring Capitalism Cem.It can be done. :y :y
I hope so.. :) but name always reminds me to take more than you give ;D :y
-
Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business. ;)
-
.....But those who were working in factories in the early days of the industrial revolution here,had previously been peasants who were impoverished,often starved if they had a poor crop,had no access to any kind of medical treatment,education etc.
As the industrial revolution progressed many factory owners had a philanthropical attitude to their workers and local communities.
The company I worked for throughout the 1980,s was founded in the Victorian era by a capitilast.The working conditions would have been poor by todays standards,but he built hundreds of houses for the workers as well as a library,school,etc.etc. and in fact the whole village grew up around this factory.The infrastructure created at that time mostly remains to this day,and the workers cottages (one of which I lived in and later bought) now sell for around £175,000.
This wasnt a rare occurrence,it was quite common up and down the country.If it hadnt been for the industrial revolution we wouldnt have the educated,affluent population that we have today.We would still mostly be living off the land and be truely backward,ignorant people. ;)
I think there's still a fair few about Albs! ::) ;)
-
Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business. ;)
honestly speaking we are no different than slaves or peasants whatever you call.. thus mutually beneficial is valid for us.. as actually we are not big players.. but big players have with different rules I'm afraid.. :-\
-
Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business. ;)
I didn't intend getting involved in this son, other that enjoying the quality of debate, but sometimes when I think of this age old question of which system is ‘best’, I can’t help thinking that it is essentially an unanswerable question.
It is so, to my mind at least, because each system can be lauded by those who have the belief that theirs is best when, in actuality, each holds some measure of merit.
That merit is soon perverted however by those very people who claim ownership of their version of it because, like so many others, they are open to as many prejudices and failings as those who champion the opposing ethos.
Each of these great pillars of belief will always founder on the frailty of the human condition for essentially – irrespective of capitalist or socialist orientation - we each of us are, for the most part, more inclined to look after ourselves or those close to us; so the notion of beneficial capitalism or socialism (to the individual or the integrity of the state) will always be dependent on how well each individual existing within, and subject to, the rigors of that system feels about how its treating them.
I think it fair to say that many people have been cruelly exploited as a result of socialism (sadly often practised in a totalitarian way) but then, it must also be said, many have been exploited by what is an essentially top down system of capitalism - and we have seen the less desirable aspect of that in the recent financial woes experienced throughout the world, the turmoil within Europe and the dictatorial system that passes for parliamentary democracy in this country.
So, having thought about it, until such times when humanism begins to seep within the souls of the world’s people we will continue to have those who believe that they, and they alone, support the only true system and that those who believe other wise, are wrong.
As far as I can see the argument over the relative merits of the opposing systems may well become moot given the state of world affairs at the moment.
The prime cause for concern in that case may well be about having sufficient water to drink, food to eat and safety to live out our daily lives, rather than the importance of esoteric concerns over the dogma of whether or not capitalism trumps socialism.
Having said that, it is of the utmost importance to continue to think about these things - as only through debate and listening to the views of others can we learn, and as a result hopefully develop our understanding to a point where these differences begin to become less important and our commonality comes to the fore.
-
Doesnt have to be that way.Mutually beneficial is a good way to do business. ;)
I didn't intend getting involved in this son, other that enjoying the quality of debate, but sometimes when I think of this age old question of which system is ‘best’, I can’t help thinking that it is essentially an unanswerable question.
It is so, to my mind at least, because each system can be lauded by those who have the belief that theirs is best when, in actuality, each holds some measure of merit.
That merit is soon perverted however by those very people who claim ownership of their version of it because, like so many others, they are open to as many prejudices and failings as those who champion the opposing ethos.
Each of these great pillars of belief will always founder on the frailty of the human condition for essentially – irrespective of capitalist or socialist orientation - we each of us are, for the most part, more inclined to look after ourselves or those close to us; so the notion of beneficial capitalism or socialism (to the individual or the integrity of the state) will always be dependent on how well each individual existing within, and subject to, the rigors of that system feels about how its treating them.
I think it fair to say that many people have been cruelly exploited as a result of socialism (sadly often practised in a totalitarian way) but then, it must also be said, many have been exploited by what is an essentially top down system of capitalism - and we have seen the less desirable aspect of that in the recent financial woes experienced throughout the world, the turmoil within Europe and the dictatorial system that passes for parliamentary democracy in this country.
So, having thought about it, until such times when humanism begins to seep within the souls of the world’s people we will continue to have those who believe that they, and they alone, support the only true system and that those who believe other wise, are wrong.
As far as I can see the argument over the relative merits of the opposing systems may well become moot given the state of world affairs at the moment.
The prime cause for concern in that case may well be about having sufficient water to drink, food to eat and safety to live out our daily lives, rather than the importance of esoteric concerns over the dogma of whether or not capitalism trumps socialism.
Having said that, it is of the utmost importance to continue to think about these things - as only through debate and listening to the views of others can we learn, and as a result hopefully develop our understanding to a point where these differences begin to become less important and our commonality comes to the fore.
good one Den :y :y :y
-
There have been many countries that have adopted communism or Lenin / Marx socialism, the link below provides a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries)
Please tell me which of these countries have been successful, so successful they are still using such a system and have a higher PPP, than their capitalist counter parts. Most communist states like china, Vietnam have introduced capitalism as they have found that socialism just does not work.
I'm not going to say that all socialist reform is bad and as an example when you have a small landowning class and a population that is incapable of industrialization (which is how the UK escaped this situation) that sensible land reform so the majority of the citizens can get a foothold in society and a ladder to which through hard work they can lift themselves out of slums and poverty. But IMHE mass market socialism destroys wealth and impoverishes people, so you have an equality of misery apart from the ruling class.
In the UK cooperatives are allowed and there are two big examples. The Co-Op chain of retail businesses which includes their own bank and The John Lewis Partnership. Where they are different to a socialist / communist cooperative is that they are run like capitalist business, with different pays scales for different levels of responsibility, but they are non-profit making in the sense that staff get to share the profits as they are essentially the share holders.
In a free society you can set up many types of businesses, if you are the founder, your business your choice on its ethos.
This country has a rich foundation based upon the generosity of many rich company owners. Some of which like social housing in London are still running today.
The Supermarine Spitfire would not have been designed and built, like it was, if it had not been for the Schneider Trophy winning aircraft designs by R J Mitchell with the financial support from Lady Houston who married into the rich landed gentry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy,_Lady_Houston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy,_Lady_Houston)
Rich people are also an important source of funding for start up businesses. In the UK their is a strong Business Angel network for this, which is an important source of funding which does not involve banks.
The problem with Western societies at the moment is that there are too many people that do not pull their weight in society, where they are heavily subsidized by the rich who volunteer to pay taxes in their own country and the middle classes. This system has been set up by socialist politicians. An icon of how successful a low tax, low regulation capitalist country can be is Hong Kong.
At the moment most investment is difficult to justify, while the country is in a depression. The only way out of it is supply side reform as there is much too much business regulation, bank reform, executive pay reform, political reform, a shrinking public sector and reduced taxes. There is no main stream political party in the UK prepared to tackle these problems along with the French socialist system being forced upon us by the EU. So I can't see where any future economic growth is going to come from. We will be like Japan, although for very different reasons with at best many years of stagflation or even more likely after the 13 years of misrule and crazy borrowing by our last Socialist Government, which has helped to make us the most indebted nation on earth, by 2015 it is looking likely that we will a have bankrupt country which will have to default.
Under our last social Government misrule we went from one of the top 10 most competitive countries to not making the top 20. The same with English, Maths and Science, we are no longer in the top 20 let alone the top 10 in the world like we used to be. They have completely screwed up to higher education system, where they set a target for 50% of people to go to university, most of of this new influx taking degrees that were a waste of time and many finding the best employment they could then find after graduation was a McJob flipping burgers.
And all socialist politicians are attracted to the new modern religions of Climate Change and Ecosystems, as a method of taxing and duping the population through propaganda on how necessary, wonderful and enlightening these new religions are, so they are throwing huge sums of tax payers money into things that will not work.
With Dens comments I agree that we should not be dogmatic, but always look for the best solution. This is lost on the current generation of politicians with very few exceptions, who are there for what they can make. Modern day politicians with a few exceptions are there for not what can I do for my country, but what can my country do for me!
All humans are essentially selfish, it is part of our survival mechanism. That was the very point made by Adam Smith on why capitalism works.
The basics that we need are water, food / energy, clothes and shelter. Food and energy are linked together as humans cannot survive without cooking food. In Greece there are charity soup kitchens, in the UK energy poverty is an increasing problems and is going to get worse due to subsidies to appease the Climate Change High Priests and Gods.
So politics and debate do matter over systems and laws as whether we like it or not we are ruled by politicians and the things they do and mistakes they make can have profound effects on everybody's lives.
-
There have been many countries that have adopted communism or Lenin / Marx socialism, the link below provides a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries)
Please tell me which of these countries have been successful, so successful they are still using such a system and have a higher PPP, than their capitalist counter parts. Most communist states like china, Vietnam have introduced capitalism as they have found that socialism just does not work.
still you want me to start the debate with capitalist ready acceptances.. first you have to proove that.. ;)
-
and can you explain why worlds largest economy (capitalist) is having the largest debt while it can print globally accepted currency ?
-
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." John Maynard Keynes
-
"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones." John Maynard Keynes
Aside from the economic tenor of that quote - a subject I am clueless about - I would say that in general terms any transition from the old to the new, and the perceived benefits to those who will be subject to the new order, will depend upon who is generating such new ideas, their purpose (and intent) for doing so and the willingness of those people exposed to that new order to accept it with good grace and use it constructively as a means to benefit the many rather than the few.
Has the Keynesian ethic helped to provide a practical and sustainable answer to the question of where we go from here - in terms of the present economic practices now being subject to so much stress?
-
Keynes always stated that as there are so many variables for successful economic policy then solutions have to be constructed to for the current times and problems with solutions for other times not being appropriate.
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13310/investing-strategy/beyond-ideology-what-is-the-right-approach-to-fixing-the-economy.html (http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13310/investing-strategy/beyond-ideology-what-is-the-right-approach-to-fixing-the-economy.html)
-
Hi Cem,
An English proverb: If it looks like a duck, has the feathers of a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. :y
Have a read of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform)
From the wiki page:
"The economy was heavily disrupted by the war against Japan and the Chinese Civil War from 1937 to 1949, after which the victorious Communists installed a planned economy.[3] Afterwards, the economy largely stagnated and was disrupted by the Great Leap Forward famine which killed between 30 and 40 million people, and the purges of the Cultural Revolution further disrupted the economy. Urban Chinese citizens experienced virtually no increase in living standards from 1957 onwards, and rural Chinese had no better living standards in the 1970s than the 1930s.[6] One study noted that average pay levels in the catering sector exceeded wages in higher education."
"The economic performance of China was poor in comparison with other East Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea, and even rival Chiang Kai-shek's Republic of China. The economy was riddled with huge inefficiencies and malinvestments, and with Mao's death, the Communist Party of China (CPC) leadership turned to market-oriented reforms to salvage the failing economy."
"China's economic growth since the reform has been very rapid, exceeding the East Asian Tigers. Economists estimate China's GDP growth from 1978 to 2005 at 9.5% a year. Since the beginning of Deng Xiaoping's reforms, China's GDP has risen tenfold.[26] The increase in total factor productivity (TFP) was the most important factor, with productivity accounting for 40.1% of the GDP increase, compared with a decline of 13.2% for the period 1957 to 1978—the height of Maoist policies. For the period 1978–2005, Chinese GDP per capita increased from 2.7% to 15.7% of US GDP per capita, and from 53.7% to 188.5% of Indian GDP per capita. Per capita incomes grew at 6.6% a year.[27] Average wages rose sixfold between 1978 and 2005,[28] while absolute poverty declined from 41% of the population to 5% from 1978 to 2001.[29] Some scholars believed that China's economic growth has been understated, due to large sectors of the economy not being counted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Vietnam)
I afraid to me Lenin / Marx socialism is like perpetual motion a great idea is theory but impossible to achieve in practice. As a practical Scientist / Engineer I'm only interested in practical solutions to problems that work.
When I was a student a lecturer used a joke to illustrate the differences between theoretical and practical scientists. A beautiful girl was standing in the middle of a room with the practical and theoretical scientists. They were both told that with each move they could half their distance to the girl. With that the theoretical scientist walked out saying he would never get to touch the girl, the practical scientist started moving towards the girl, saying, no nor will I, but within 5 minutes I will be bloody close.
-
and can you explain why worlds largest economy (capitalist) is having the largest debt while it can print globally accepted currency ?
Because they are the worlds biggest economy and for historical reasons. The way that the current socialist president is burning through money setting up the UK equivalent of the NHS and other social programs, if he gets another term, the US will be about as economically sound as Argentina, the UK, Italy, France, Spain and Greece. A much better solution would have been radical reform of their current health system with patients only being able to sue for poor treatment outcomes where there is clear medical negligence. This would have dramatically reduced the cost of treatment, where they have to consistently work to make sure they don't create any liability for an army of no win, no fee lawyers to latch on to. This would have also considerably reduced the medical staff's insurance premiums.
Anyway I digress, back to currencies:
At that point it will either change to the Chinese currency or more likely be based on an artificial trading currency with which all countries will have a floating exchange rate. This second idea has already being proposed by several BRIC countries. I can't see America voluntarily giving up their reserve currency status as it would also mean more competition where they have grain and other global market trading mechanisms due to their reserve status.
-
Keynes always stated that as there are so many variables for successful economic policy then solutions have to be constructed to for the current times and problems with solutions for other times not being appropriate.
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13310/investing-strategy/beyond-ideology-what-is-the-right-approach-to-fixing-the-economy.html (http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13310/investing-strategy/beyond-ideology-what-is-the-right-approach-to-fixing-the-economy.html)
I quite enjoyed reading that MM piece - based on the concluding remarks, I fear that the answer may well be that there is no answer.
The unhappy realisation that there may indeed be no well measured or well developed answer to this vexed question of the need for a sustainable economic policy may not necessarily have had any great impact around the world in times past.
Sadly, in the present (and future), the absence of answers to the questions many are now posing about how we proceed on the path towards economic stability and growth, may well have catastrophic consequences for everyone in this increasingly globalized society where the immediacy of information, the bellicose nature of the many who make up its number and the availability of weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to mankind hitherto unseen in such a potentially far-reaching way.
-
and can you explain why worlds largest economy (capitalist) is having the largest debt while it can print globally accepted currency ?
Because they are the worlds biggest economy and for historical reasons. .
Hmm.. as said the evil hides in the detail- the last 2 words.. why dont you tell that the whole American society dont have their very own Central Bank and the right to print money.. Instead they borrow their own money as a loan.. becuse FED is not their property.. and a whole nation is captured by a few.. :(
and this is your famous system ;D
-
Now some comment related to other posts..
Rods, you are repeating capitalist's classical mistake..
first you accept capitalist propositions as true then you start a debate on it..
second you give various tables as examples (like GDP-PPP ) than you start commenting on it..
just have a look at this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita)
and please tell me what you see.. if you compare apples and pears you wont get a meaningful result..
Why ?
they cant/dont measure many factors which will bring wrong results..
Of course if we are talking about success of systems we must be able to measure some values.. yes..
but for you to compare two different systems realistically , you must take into account their starting points, country factors , regional factors,internal/external trade capacity,population etc etc.. and the list goes on and the solution becomes more complex.. which is far from the calculation abilities/opportunities of economists :D ;D
However, there is a simple measure.. which uses the country itself as a measure.. growth rates..
just have a look at this list and tell me where are your countries ::) ;D
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=66 (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=66)
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=xx&v=78 (http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=xx&v=78)
-
while looking for some pages I have found this page.. I hope you enjoy it ;D
heading is "viagra and the wealth of nations"
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/viagra.html (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/viagra.html)
-
while looking for some pages I have found this page.. I hope you enjoy it ;D
heading is "viagra and the wealth of nations"
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/viagra.html (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/viagra.html)
Good article I enjoyed that.
I don't disagree that GDP and PPP are statistical measurements that are subject to the quality of data. They are empirical rather than absolute values. But as Krugman said, they are the best tools we have currently got and the best estimates we can manage. All Governments consistently fiddle inflation rates with the items in the basket. Our last Government was particularly bad for this where they changed several important measures.
Why is that important? Because: GDP growth = (new GDP / 1 + inflation rate) - old GDP. The lower you fiddle inflation the higher the apparent growth.
But one thing I have learnt is that prices for most internationally traded commodities and items are about the same. In fact in poorer countries they are often slightly more expensive due to being sold in smaller quantities and that they less efficient distribution systems. So the higher a countries PPP, the more affordable goods are, which is why that is important and wealth gives you a wider range of choices on how you choose to live your life.
Frames of reference:
I'm sure like me, you studied this in collage, where if you are on a train, you speed compared to the person sitting next to you is zero, but the person on the platform sees your speed as that of the moving train etc.
Yes, I do view things from a Western standpoint as that is the framework that I have built up to make comparisons on things.
Quality of life, happiness, fairness, equality are all meaningless words, they only having meaning within a frame of reference and context.
Quality of live:
1. A multi-Millionaire who is in poor health and spends part of his vast wealth good health treatment, but is always in much pain, will probably say he has a poor quality of life.
2. A poor person in good health with a good family, who is very happy with his lot, may say he has a good quality of life. As his good family more than make up for lack of material things.
Fairness:
1. Rich person: I think it is grossly unfair that I'm taxed at over 60% of my economic output to subsidize a large section of society that prefers not to work.
2. Benefits Claiment: I think it is very unfair that rich people are only taxed at 60%, where I could do with more money. Why don't you get a job? Because it pays less than benefits.
Freedom:
Now if you want to live in a marxist state like North Korea or set up a collective cooperative, so everybody from you as the MD to the cleaner get paid exactly the same, your business you run it how you want, I don't have a problem with that.
I like small government with as few rules as possible to make a cohesive society and so I'm free to apply you own philosophies to how I live my day to day life and how I wish to apply my personal economic philosophies to how I earn a living as an individual or as part of a collection of individuals where people can sell their labour for me to use at a mutually agreed price and terms. Marxism does not allow this freedom and nor does increasingly the EU, which is why I have a fundamental problem in continuing to live in a EU country.
Where I do have a big problem is people imposing arbitrary systems upon me and telling me that is how I have got to live me life. Why can't I decide on the small Government basis? You could answer, because we think it benefits society as a whole. Who says? Because I don't. History has shown such decent is not allowed in Marxist countries, so I would be off to the local political correction centre. :o :o :o
-
Keynes always stated that as there are so many variables for successful economic policy then solutions have to be constructed to for the current times and problems with solutions for other times not being appropriate.
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13310/investing-strategy/beyond-ideology-what-is-the-right-approach-to-fixing-the-economy.html (http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13310/investing-strategy/beyond-ideology-what-is-the-right-approach-to-fixing-the-economy.html)
I quite enjoyed reading that MM piece - based on the concluding remarks, I fear that the answer may well be that there is no answer.
The unhappy realisation that there may indeed be no well measured or well developed answer to this vexed question of the need for a sustainable economic policy may not necessarily have had any great impact around the world in times past.
Sadly, in the present (and future), the absence of answers to the questions many are now posing about how we proceed on the path towards economic stability and growth, may well have catastrophic consequences for everyone in this increasingly globalized society where the immediacy of information, the bellicose nature of the many who make up its number and the availability of weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to mankind hitherto unseen in such a potentially far-reaching way.
There are some very good solutions for the UK and Europe but they won't happen as politicians would have to implement the unthinkable which would throw away much spent political capital and dogmas and it would mean many of their public office cronies losing their jobs, through the exposure of their total incompetence or they being surplus to requirements.
UK:
The cast DC - Prime minister, GO - Chancellor, NC - Deputy prime minister, MK - Mervyn King head of BOE.
1. DC: It is politically much easier, while you are in office to borrow or tax to spend other peoples money to provide an electoral feel good factor.
2. GO: I'm raising taxes to help our spending plans, that should put more money in the electorates pockets, especially as the money raised will be spent in Brussels on their budget increases and any third world country where the local despot needs help with his retirement fund from our ever increasing over overseas aid budget. I must make sure I pluck the tax feathers, where the electorate are unlikely to notice. How about a tax on hot pasties?
3. GO: Its not working. MK: I can either drop interest rates to even nearer zero and / or print lots of money or use QE to debase the currency through higher inflation. GO: You know I don't understand economics, so whatever.
4. GO: Still not working. MK: No, the inflation rate is higher than wage rises, so wages are dropping in real terms and inflation is higher than interest rates so savings are devalued. GO: Apply some more QE, that will fixed the bond markets, so I can borrow oddles more for next to nothing. MK: It will rasie inflation. GO: Who cares we've both got inflation proofed pensions.
5. GO: Keep going on the QE as the capital debasement on house prices will minimize their drop and bank losses. This will help our mates the banksters and of course us politically where we largely own a couple of them.
6. DC: We will implement minority rights and political reform legislation, as we might get a few extra votes and it will distract people away from where we haven't got a clue what to do on the economy.
7. DC: Let throw as much money as possible at the new modern religion of Climate Change and anything with "Eco" in the title, we might pick up a few votes here, and of course it will help our land owning relations, where they can rent plots for some of the wind mills. MK: What about the energy bill increases to pay for this, people will suffer. GO: No we won't, me and DC have rent free all the bills paid accommodation.
6. DC: Lets huff and puff on how we are going to repatriate powers from Brussels and do some supply side reforms, which is probably currently one of our best hopes for growth, while doing the exact opposite by nodding through more EU directives and treaty changes and making our industry even more uncompetitive. This should help our growth.
7. NC: We can go for growth by selecting the ideal candidate through the coalitions Buggin's turn rules. So what if have an anti-business anti-enterprise, anti-entrepreneurial, anti-profit business secretary, who does nothing but moan about business ethics, its his turn. There you go that should get the private sector booming in no time.
8. DC: We will go for growth though infrastructure projects by banning a third runway at Heathrow, so we don't fly to tiger economy destinations, where we could be doing export deals. Instead lets build the politically easier un-needed duplicate railway. There you go, you trust us to make the difficult decisions for the good of the economy.
9. GO: Help 0.7% GDP drop. DC: Try a distraction, this is ideal, we are holding an expensive International sporting events on our home turf, is always a good one, especially if the local mayor gets into the swing things and adds a few of his own stunts
10. GO: It's still not working, I'll blame the Euro, opposition, bad weather, good weather, Jubilee holidays, anybody but us where we are doing such a very good job.
DC, GO, NC and MK: We might be stuffed at the next election, but economically so will the electorate and you haven't been getting our MPs and ministers salaries, expenses or our inflation proofed gold plated pensions. Ha, Ha. Toodle pips, Were off to my new jobs in Brussels as Eco, Climate Change, Equality, Gender Awareness Outreach Commissioners, on a mere value for money €300k each, tax free.
Anybody for a celebration hot pasty.
-
Hi Cem
You might find this company's organisation interesting.
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13446/investing-strategy/getting-rid-of-the-boss.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=07%2F08&utm_campaign=2 (http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13446/investing-strategy/getting-rid-of-the-boss.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=07%2F08&utm_campaign=2)
-
Hi Cem
You might find this company's organisation interesting.
http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13446/investing-strategy/getting-rid-of-the-boss.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=07%2F08&utm_campaign=2 (http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/13446/investing-strategy/getting-rid-of-the-boss.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=07%2F08&utm_campaign=2)
quite interesting Rods. thanks :y