Jacob
What goes around comes around.
politics, religion, wake me up when we get to sex!
India’s successful Moon Landing
- Thread starter deema
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
I would not sing thatchers praise in many parts of Nottinghamshire, Durham or Yorkshire without expecting a hostile response.
I was born and brought up near Huddersfield. I remember well the miners under the Arthur Scargill leading the ‘fight’ against the conservatives. The strike was generated by the NCB wishing to cut production of coal by 4 million tonnes and close 20 pits with a loss of 20,000 jobs. It all seems rather ironic looking back at it, all the the Union succeeded in doing was destroying the entire industry sooner rather than later. Today, the modern thinking is that coal is a swear word, and we should never have mined, burned or used it in the first place. Now, I say this just to bait my left wing friends, but Dear old Margaret was before her time in taking on and shutting down the CO2 generating, dirty polluting coal industry that labour and all the left wingers at the time tried so hard to protect and keep open.
Greta would be an ardent supporter of Thatchers approach to coal miners
Last edited:
The irony is that the left, ie labour oppose it. Isn’t politics fascinating!! Labour and conservatives switching perspectives over coal
I believe there is evidence of water ice, which would be very useful if found in any quantity for settlement and or rocket fuel to get further out.
Believe me when I say I'm no fan of either of the two main parties, but the party in charge right now seem to be doing their best to ignore the problems faced by the planet, the real irony of which is that we're missing money generating opportunities by doing so as well as condemning all the future generations to a dismal future. All of which comes full circle when considering the moon landing by India - what problem does it solve?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Her battle was against the unions, not about climate change. She accepted the climate change theory at first but later backed off, presumably under instructions from her backers.
They wanted a fair deal for the minersthat labour and all the left wingers at the time tried so hard to protect and keep open.
She wouldn't support the fight against union rights, nor the shift to buying foreign coal.Greta would be an ardent supporter of Thatchers approach to coal miners
Phill05
Established Member
Here you are then:
Have you heard about the lawyer parks his brand-new Porsche in front of the office to show it off to his colleagues.
As he's getting out of the car, a wagon comes flying along too close and takes off the door and does not stop.
Distraught, the lawyer grabs his phone and calls 999. Five minutes later, the police arrive.
Before the officer has a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer starts screaming hysterically,
"My Porsche, my Porsche, my beautiful silver Porsche is ruined! No matter how long it's in the shop for repairs, it will never be the same again!"
After the lawyer finally finishes his rant, the policeman shakes his head in disgust.
"I can't believe how materialistic you bloody lawyers are," he says. "You lot are so focused on your possessions that you don't notice anything else in your life."
"How can you say such a thing at a time like this?" snaps the lawyer.
The policeman replies, "Don't tell me you didn't notice your arm was torn off?"
The lawyer looks down in horror. and screams,
"Oh my God, what am I going to do where's my Rolex?"
That is what I said!
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Money is merely a means of exchange without which all complex societies would be unable to function.
Imagine you are a maker of fine chairs. You are hungry. The butcher, baker, greengrocer don't want another chair - hunger becomes starvation. Even if your local village balances barter with personal trust, importing hardwood from West Africa (or wherever) is impossible.
What matters is what people do with money. £1m spread around a 1000 families is £1000 each - perhaps a holiday, pay off a credit card, a new TV etc. £1m in the hands of an individual can provide investment to create jobs, better products, build a house etc.
There is nothing wrong with the accumulation of money per se. That some will use money as a measure of personal importance or success arises as it is one of the few achievements which can be measured in absolute terms. Some will actively mis-use money to the detriment of society.
Money allows individuals to initiate progress, deploying creativity, ideas and energy. Governments are wholly incapable of doing this - they are inherently management by consensus with one eye on the ballot box. Governments are inherently risk averse (Liz Truss excepted!!)
True worth in life may be found in family, helping others, improving the environment etc. These may be emotionally rewarding and important - but incapable of objective measurement.
Imagine you are a maker of fine chairs. You are hungry. The butcher, baker, greengrocer don't want another chair - hunger becomes starvation. Even if your local village balances barter with personal trust, importing hardwood from West Africa (or wherever) is impossible.
What matters is what people do with money. £1m spread around a 1000 families is £1000 each - perhaps a holiday, pay off a credit card, a new TV etc. £1m in the hands of an individual can provide investment to create jobs, better products, build a house etc.
There is nothing wrong with the accumulation of money per se. That some will use money as a measure of personal importance or success arises as it is one of the few achievements which can be measured in absolute terms. Some will actively mis-use money to the detriment of society.
Money allows individuals to initiate progress, deploying creativity, ideas and energy. Governments are wholly incapable of doing this - they are inherently management by consensus with one eye on the ballot box. Governments are inherently risk averse (Liz Truss excepted!!)
True worth in life may be found in family, helping others, improving the environment etc. These may be emotionally rewarding and important - but incapable of objective measurement.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
There is something wrong with it if others don't have enough.
Ditto food, land, housing, clean water, health, education, etc etc.
Politics is much simpler than you think and it's about wealth in the wider sense, not just bank balances
But not necessarily for the benefit of all. It also initiates grotesque exploitation and imbalance of power
You are quite right though and conversely; lack of money does the opposite, is a waste of human potential, reduces quality of life and of society as a whole, may lead to ill health, early death, crime - all of which are a cost to society.
Utter nonsense. Governments are the only agency which can change this for the benefit of all, and very good at it too. Just think NHS for starters. Trickle down theory has always been a bad joke! Tax the rich!
In a democracy they are managed by us, the people
It's the electorate which tends to be risk averse and votes for timid idiots with a strong propaganda machine behind them.
https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/33...a_Progressive_Annual_Wealth_Tax_(2021)_v2.pdf
https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/42714/9/42714_TIPPET_The_good_life_at_the_top.pdf
Last edited:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
The top 3000 tax payers pay the same amount in taxes as the bottom 9,000,000.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
They should pay a lot more.
It's weird how so many, even on low incomes, whilst public services in which they may depend are being run down year after year, choose to protect the wealth of the top 1%. They have fallen for a massive con trick.
"1. Wealth in the UK in 2023 is extremely concentrated: the richest 50 families in the UK have more wealth than the bottom half of the UK population (33.5 million people): both groups own £466 billion.
2. Since the first rich list was published in 1989, wealth inequality has been on the rise: in 1989 a rich person had 6000 times the average person. Today it is 18,000 times.
3. COVID-19 and the cost-of-living crisis has not stopped rising wealth inequality: since the beginning of Covid-19, the wealthiest 200 families have seen their wealth increase in real terms by 22%. This increase alone is enough to give every family in the UK £9000.
4. While the super-rich of the STRL have never been wealthier, the UK government is poorer than at any time over the last 30 years. Privatisation, lowrelatively low public investment spending and financial sector and COVID-19 bailouts have pushed the UK government’s liabilities to exceed its assets by £1.25 trillion in 2023.
5. Wealth inequality is likely to continue to grow into the future if nothing is done: if we continue at the current rates, the wealth of the richest 200 families will be larger than whole UK economy (GDP) by 2035.1
6. An increasingly popular solution is to raise taxes on the wealthy: taxing just half of the increase in the wealth of the richest 50 families each year would raise enough to give all public sector workers (5.5 million people) a standard of living preserving pay rise of 10.5%."
https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/33...a_Progressive_Annual_Wealth_Tax_(2021)_v2.pdf
https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/42714/9/42714_TIPPET_The_good_life_at_the_top.pdf
Last edited:
@Terry - Somerset
"Money is merely a means of exchange without which all complex societies would be unable to function."
Partly true. It is an easy means of exchange. However, money has also become a means of gaining resources (money).
As an example: The idea of the stock exchange was to allow people to invest in businesses in order to facilitate their growth with an expectation of a reasonable return some time down the line after said growth had taken place. Now the stock market is about fast transactions every few milliseconds with the sole purpose of profiteering. The concept of actual investment is dead.
I'm not saying we should scrap money and return to a barter system, however I do believe that Capitalism has become corrupt and will probably eventually destroy itself and who know how many billions of lives along with it.
"What matters is what people do with money. £1m spread around a 1000 families is £1000 each - perhaps a holiday, pay off a credit card, a new TV etc. £1m in the hands of an individual can provide investment to create jobs, better products, build a house etc."
Would that it were so! The operative word here is "can". Sadly, there is too much greed and the concept of investment goes out the window. (see above example).
Governments do have access to vast resources so they should be able to achieve amazing things for the benefit of society. Does it happen?
All too often, no! Why? Greed raises its ugly head again and makes people do some very stupid things; ask Liz Truss!
So, what do we do?
We say; "Well done India for landing on the far side of the moon on a tight budget! Hopefully all the people of India will gain some benefit eventually!"
Mr. Putin, take note what free and motivated people can do!
"Money is merely a means of exchange without which all complex societies would be unable to function."
Partly true. It is an easy means of exchange. However, money has also become a means of gaining resources (money).
As an example: The idea of the stock exchange was to allow people to invest in businesses in order to facilitate their growth with an expectation of a reasonable return some time down the line after said growth had taken place. Now the stock market is about fast transactions every few milliseconds with the sole purpose of profiteering. The concept of actual investment is dead.
I'm not saying we should scrap money and return to a barter system, however I do believe that Capitalism has become corrupt and will probably eventually destroy itself and who know how many billions of lives along with it.
"What matters is what people do with money. £1m spread around a 1000 families is £1000 each - perhaps a holiday, pay off a credit card, a new TV etc. £1m in the hands of an individual can provide investment to create jobs, better products, build a house etc."
Would that it were so! The operative word here is "can". Sadly, there is too much greed and the concept of investment goes out the window. (see above example).
Governments do have access to vast resources so they should be able to achieve amazing things for the benefit of society. Does it happen?
All too often, no! Why? Greed raises its ugly head again and makes people do some very stupid things; ask Liz Truss!
So, what do we do?
We say; "Well done India for landing on the far side of the moon on a tight budget! Hopefully all the people of India will gain some benefit eventually!"
Mr. Putin, take note what free and motivated people can do!
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The greatest weakness of the stock market , finance and the business is "Limited Liability". They should bear the losses as well as the gains.
Last edited:
That's what Maggi told the Miners.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
They were just paid workers and didn't invest money, or get a share of the profits, or voting rights.
Though in earlier days mine owners did have a scheme whereby miners were organised into sub contractor teams bidding for work, but it wasn't for the benefit of the miners! Similar to zero hour contracts or the notorious dock employment schemes.
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Not popular this side of the Pennines either. Nasty piece of work.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Just a footnote - it's a popular delusion that businesses generate money and governments spend it.
In fact nearly half GDP is spending by government on public services, which generates enormous amounts of wealth like any other business activity, as well as the value of the benefits to society itself.
Taxation generates wealth - what goes around comes around.
In fact nearly half GDP is spending by government on public services, which generates enormous amounts of wealth like any other business activity, as well as the value of the benefits to society itself.
Taxation generates wealth - what goes around comes around.
- Status
