wrencat1873 wrote:But of course you are wrong. Of the 4 strongest economies in the World two would be regarded as right wing (USA and Japan) and two would be regarded as left wing (China and Germany). and yet, China (socialist) has maintained the strongest year on year growth of the 4 Clearly socialism doesnt work From an economic point,socialism may have worked in China,but would you want to live there and abide by their laws? This makes for an interesting read. https://www.inkstonenews.com/china-tran ... le/2161467

wrencat1873 wrote:But of course you are wrong. Of the 4 strongest economies in the World two would be regarded as right wing (USA and Japan) and two would be regarded as left wing (China and Germany). and yet, China (socialist) has maintained the strongest year on year growth of the 4 Clearly socialism doesnt work From an economic point,socialism may have worked in China,but would you want to live there and abide by their laws? This makes for an interesting read. https://www.inkstonenews.com/china-tran ... le/2161467

Sal Paradise wrote:You can't say that on here - personal responsibility doesn't sit high up in the thoughts of many on here. Not surprising because the left leaners would be happy if we all gave our money to Uncle Jeremy and Marxist John and they dole out some pocket money to everyone - as long as their pocket money was bigger than most!! Socialism!! There’ll always be some individuals who fall through the holes of even the best run society. But it is a question of degree at a societal level. I mean there must be some societies that you look at and think, ooh this level of inequality isn’t healthy, no? Places where you would be a lefty. According to this list, the UK’s Gini co-efficient is 34.8. Would you be okay with inequality rising to Chinese levels (38.5), US levels (41.4) or even the eye-watering levels of Brazil (53.9) or South Africa (63.0). Or are we better for living in a more equal society than those? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... e_equality

Sal Paradise wrote:You can't say that on here - personal responsibility doesn't sit high up in the thoughts of many on here. Not surprising because the left leaners would be happy if we all gave our money to Uncle Jeremy and Marxist John and they dole out some pocket money to everyone - as long as their pocket money was bigger than most!! Socialism!! There’ll always be some individuals who fall through the holes of even the best run society. But it is a question of degree at a societal level. I mean there must be some societies that you look at and think, ooh this level of inequality isn’t healthy, no? Places where you would be a lefty. According to this list, the UK’s Gini co-efficient is 34.8. Would you be okay with inequality rising to Chinese levels (38.5), US levels (41.4) or even the eye-watering levels of Brazil (53.9) or South Africa (63.0). Or are we better for living in a more equal society than those? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... e_equality

Mild Rover wrote:There’ll always be some individuals who fall through the holes of even the best run society. But it is a question of degree at a societal level. I mean there must be some societies that you look at and think, ooh this level of inequality isn’t healthy, no? Places where you would be a lefty. According to this list, the UK’s Gini co-efficient is 34.8. Would you be okay with inequality rising to Chinese levels (38.5), US levels (41.4) or even the eye-watering levels of Brazil (53.9) or South Africa (63.0). Or are we better for living in a more equal society than those? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... e_equality I am a greater believer in individuals taking some ownership for their actions. If people work hard/take risks and generate additional profits there should be no limit to the wealth they can generate - to inhibit this is wrong in my view. Supply and demand would push wages up for skilled employees - perhaps getting skills that you can sell should be a priority? Again easy to toss it off at school and then blame everyone else because you can't get a job. The better off already support those less well off through taxation - top 1% pay a third of all income tax. It is likely they buy more costly stuff so pay more VAT etc. Your view is the government decides who earns what i.e. a cap on wages and salaries and that money pushed down as per your inter-dependence model. My view is without the top being allowed the freedom to make what they can there wouldn't be the incentive and then there wouldn't be the money to push down. The point I was making is that providing food and clothing for your kids should be a given and a matter of personal responsibility - falling back on the state should be a last resort not the first option - sadly for many the latter is the case.

Mild Rover wrote:There’ll always be some individuals who fall through the holes of even the best run society. But it is a question of degree at a societal level. I mean there must be some societies that you look at and think, ooh this level of inequality isn’t healthy, no? Places where you would be a lefty. According to this list, the UK’s Gini co-efficient is 34.8. Would you be okay with inequality rising to Chinese levels (38.5), US levels (41.4) or even the eye-watering levels of Brazil (53.9) or South Africa (63.0). Or are we better for living in a more equal society than those? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... e_equality I am a greater believer in individuals taking some ownership for their actions. If people work hard/take risks and generate additional profits there should be no limit to the wealth they can generate - to inhibit this is wrong in my view. Supply and demand would push wages up for skilled employees - perhaps getting skills that you can sell should be a priority? Again easy to toss it off at school and then blame everyone else because you can't get a job. The better off already support those less well off through taxation - top 1% pay a third of all income tax. It is likely they buy more costly stuff so pay more VAT etc. Your view is the government decides who earns what i.e. a cap on wages and salaries and that money pushed down as per your inter-dependence model. My view is without the top being allowed the freedom to make what they can there wouldn't be the incentive and then there wouldn't be the money to push down. The point I was making is that providing food and clothing for your kids should be a given and a matter of personal responsibility - falling back on the state should be a last resort not the first option - sadly for many the latter is the case.

TURFEDOUT wrote:From an economic point,socialism may have worked in China,but would you want to live there and abide by their laws? This makes for an interesting read. https://www.inkstonenews.com/china-tran ... le/2161467 I wouldn't but, that's not the point. Despite Chinas short comings and they have plenty, they ARE a economically successful nation.

TURFEDOUT wrote:From an economic point,socialism may have worked in China,but would you want to live there and abide by their laws? This makes for an interesting read. https://www.inkstonenews.com/china-tran ... le/2161467 I wouldn't but, that's not the point. Despite Chinas short comings and they have plenty, they ARE a economically successful nation.

What you say, may be ok if those at the top actually contributed the requisite level of tax, instead of many of them finding a myriad of ways to avoid doing so.
Ironically, the current government have created an even more state dependent population and the view for a little while will bet that "the government should help".

Hanging comparator.
You believe more in individual responsibility than societal?
Or you believe more in individual responsibility than, for example, me?
If the latter, I’d like to note that I believe very much in individual responsibility. I believe it crucial to and best nurtured in an equitable society. The latter is why there’s a pretty good correlation between Gini coefficient and crime. Individuals are both responsible for their actions (e.g. crimes) and products of their environment.
I think there’s a tendency we all have, including me, to switch between thinking in terms of groups and individuals to suit our arguments.



It is a question about wealth distribution rather than generation, in my mind. There are situations where I might be, in relative terms, on the economic right. Markets are not independent of politics and so the way that value is assigned varies.

You say no limit, but presumably there is in theory. If everybody ends up huddling together, starving in slums around the palaces of the Bezos-Zuckerburg-Murdoch dynasty, you might tone down the ‘those guys deserve it’ stuff?



How do you feel about progressive taxation in the UK? Do you think the balance is about right?



Even setting aside COVID, do you think there are factors and structural issues beyond personal irresponsibility that make difficult for a lot of people to meet ends meet? If not, what do you think are the root causes behind varying trends in the amount of personal responsibility across different societies, times and places?

To answer your points:
As we have seen during this Covis crisis - unless individuals are prepared to isolate, observe the rules etc it doesn't matter what society dictates unless you want a society that behaves exactly as the centre dictates - perhaps your more of a central control individual than I thought i.e. I/the state know what's best for you!!

If you have no wealth generation there is no wealth distribution? Average standards of living have increased incredibly under the Capitalist era - does that not tell you something?

You didn't read my point the likes of Bezos need others to support their ingenuity and talent - to attract the best the simple supply/demand principle comes in to play. Better trained/educated employees push wages upwards - everyone makes more money - how do you stop Amazon making more money?

Those that earn more should pay more - but that is as it is - what you can't do is what you want to do is restrict the earning potential of the very talented.

There are plenty of people who have no problem feeding/clothing their children even working for minimum wage. Why is it that those on benefits - which in many cases will give them more disposable income than those who manage on minimum pay can't cope? Do you think an over reliance on the backstop of the state means it doesn't really matter how they fritter away their monies as the state will always provide more?

I think that, in terms of political economics, a lot of our differences are philosophical rather that practical. I’m not that much of a radical lefty. I just like arguing... most of the time. A little break might do me good though. Thanks for the sparring. See you in a little while.

Nothing wrong with constructive debate - I fully appreciate your position - I come from 30+ years of running my own business and everything that comes with that - over time you see human behaviour and perhaps you simply become too cynical?

This is Sal we are talking about. He reminds me of that Harry Enfield character. As for that other idiot that recently turned up, he also reminds me of someone? Can’t think who though? Both were clueless daily mail readers??