Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure..

If you do explain why?

An economy and therefore economic growth or whatever is a closed circuit dependent on trade..... when any part of the closed circuit is blocked - such as too many people out of work and no money to buy, or too much production/competition, the circuit breaks.

So a degree of fairness is required in a viable economy.

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why?

What drives a person to start a company, develop new products, beat the competition and become a force in the economy?

Fairness?  hardly. Equality?  are you kidding?

It is the competitiveness of the capitalist economy that delivers economic growth - not 'equality and fairness'. In essence that is the supposed Marxist economic model. See how that worked out?  Equality of poverty.

Fairness and Equity are not part of the deal...

Nor is consistency, at least in our current economic system. A free market is the goal, yet, there needs to be some regulation as well apparently, meaning it is not truly a free market.

The quest for fairness will only drive economic growth backwards - ostensibly because those with the biggest slice of the pie presently do not want anyone else having a fair share... That is our current economic model, which has also become our social and spiritual model.... There is only the economy!

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why?

Fairness and equality is another term for living out of someone else's pocket which is a drain on economic growth....

Swagman wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 7:15am:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Fairness and equality is another term for living out of someone else's pocket which is a drain on economic growth....

Both terms are undefined making the question unanswerable. Both terms are subjective at best, also making the question unanswerable. To some - like unemployed-crook and unlikable-kat - equality means everyone gets the same wage no matter their job. To them, fairness would mean getting an average wage without the inconvenience of actually working.

And entrepreneur who has put up his house to start a company would probably define fairness as his employees getting the award wage and he getting all the profits.

The terms are undefined and so the answer is likewise, undefined.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 6:27am:

Fairness and Equity are not part of the deal... Nor is consistency, at least in our current economic system. A free market is the goal, yet, there needs to be some regulation as well apparently, meaning it is not truly a free market. The quest for fairness will only drive economic growth backwards - ostensibly because those with the biggest slice of the pie presently do not want anyone else having a fair share... That is our current economic model, which has also become our social and spiritual model.... There is only the economy!

Politics of envy.... no uppity peasant should prosper mightily through hard work and commitment..

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 7:47am:

Swagman wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 7:15am: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Fairness and equality is another term for living out of someone else's pocket which is a drain on economic growth.... Both terms are undefined making the question unanswerable. Both terms are subjective at best, also making the question unanswerable. To some - like unemployed-crook and unlikable-kat - equality means everyone gets the same wage no matter their job. To them, fairness would mean getting an average wage without the inconvenience of actually working. And entrepreneur who has put up his house to start a company would probably define fairness as his employees getting the award wage and he getting all the profits. The terms are undefined and so the answer is likewise, undefined.

I see the interpersonal vitriol brought here by He Man and his ilk has taken firm root with this one.... I wonder why Freediver tolerates the descent of this forum into endless bickering... could've sworn I saw a post up above there about 'no personal insults'....

How many entrepreneurs 'put up their house' to raise capital for a business?  Banks loan on a business plan and in most cases personal property doesn't come into it, as shown by the number of failed 'businessmen' who get away with vast properties and cash when a business collapses.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 8:02am:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 6:27am: Fairness and Equity are not part of the deal... Nor is consistency, at least in our current economic system. A free market is the goal, yet, there needs to be some regulation as well apparently, meaning it is not truly a free market. The quest for fairness will only drive economic growth backwards - ostensibly because those with the biggest slice of the pie presently do not want anyone else having a fair share... That is our current economic model, which has also become our social and spiritual model.... There is only the economy! Politics of envy.... no uppity peasant should prosper mightily through hard work and commitment..

Hard work and commitment ends up making the peasant a NON-peasant.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 6:12pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? What drives a person to start a company, develop new products, beat the competition and become a force in the economy? Fairness?  hardly. Equality?  are you kidding? It is the competitiveness of the capitalist economy that delivers economic growth - not 'equality and fairness'. In essence that is the supposed Marxist economic model. See how that worked out?  Equality of poverty.

No, fairness isn't a driver of economic growth per se, but having a strong middles class is essential to it.

As to what drives people, making money is only part of the equation. Passion and vision are just as important.

Not everyone does things purely for an economic benefit, and acting as though they do is a mistake.

Kytro wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 6:12pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? What drives a person to start a company, develop new products, beat the competition and become a force in the economy? Fairness?  hardly. Equality?  are you kidding? It is the competitiveness of the capitalist economy that delivers economic growth - not 'equality and fairness'. In essence that is the supposed Marxist economic model. See how that worked out?  Equality of poverty. No, fairness isn't a driver of economic growth per se, but having a strong middles class is essential to it. As to what drives people, making money is only part of the equation. Passion and vision are just as important. Not everyone does things purely for an economic benefit, and acting as though they do is a mistake.

Yours is a nice thought but fundamentally wrong. Yes, SOME people do things for no benefit, but the vast majority of people work.... for the money. They start businesses for... the money. They go without some things so that can keep... the money.

Money is one of our most powerful motivators. Yes passion and vision are essential, but for most people that passion and vision is about making money. Those who don't think that way either already have money or are getting it from another source.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

Money is one of our most powerful motivators. Yes passion and vision are essential, but for most people that passion and vision is about making money. Those who don't think that way either already have money or are getting it from another source.

Making enough money to be comfortable it a motivator, but beyond that it really only does tell part of the story.

I could easily make more money than I do, but I value my time too much to do so.

The thing is people often think money is what motivates them, but it's not in many cases.

One study found that if people believed the work was valued they would work for significantly less money.

People want to feel valued and appreciated and as though their work has some meaning. People who don't are less productive.

It's not that money is unimportant, it's that is only a part of what motivates people to work, and certainly to work hard. People at the top end are really working for the status money brings.

Daron Acemoglu wrote an excellent book on this: Why Nations Fail.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1394832229

His argument is that political and economic inclusiveness (the precursors of freedom, democracy, capitalism...) are the main drivers of modern wealth. He presents broad and compelling historical evidence for this, spanning the Roman Empire, Venice, the French Revolution, the Spanish and British empires, and their lasting effects on the Americas and Africa, and the influence of pre-European culture on post-colonial economics.

This matches well with what most people generally think of as fairness, though not when invoking economic protectionism.

freediver wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

Daron Acemoglu wrote an excellent book on this: Why Nations Fail. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1394832229 His argument is that political and economic inclusiveness (the precursors of freedom, democracy, capitalism...) are the main drivers of modern wealth. He presents broad and compelling historical evidence for this, spanning the Roman Empire, Venice, the French Revolution, the Spanish and British empires, and their lasting effects on the Americas and Africa, and the influence of pre-European culture on post-colonial economics. This matches well with what most people generally think of as fairness, though not when invoking economic protectionism.

Interesting.....

I suppose it all depends on how fairness is defined... is it fair, for example to force someone to charge what is considered a fair price for a good or service... is it fair to allow rampant runaway pricing without control.... is it fair to hold a total monopoly and thus enforce higher prices.... is it fair to play on a non-level playing field, utilising tax havens and cheap offshore labour etc?

The list goes on... but several of these issues, such as monopoly and over-pricing, have been legislated against, so it would appear that there is a sort of general consensus within the West about what is and what is not fair.

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why?

Greed is the only driver of economic growth.

Kytro wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 10:39am: Money is one of our most powerful motivators. Yes passion and vision are essential, but for most people that passion and vision is about making money. Those who don't think that way either already have money or are getting it from another source. Making enough money to be comfortable it a motivator, but beyond that it really only does tell part of the story. I could easily make more money than I do, but I value my time too much to do so. The thing is people often think money is what motivates them, but it's not in many cases. One study found that if people believed the work was valued they would work for significantly less money. People want to feel valued and appreciated and as though their work has some meaning. People who don't are less productive. It's not that money is unimportant, it's that is only a part of what motivates people to work, and certainly to work hard. People at the top end are really working for the status money brings.

They are still working for the money. I didn't say that money was the end-all, but it is a step to virtually everything else as well as being an end in its own right for many.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

They are still working for the money. I didn't say that money was the end-all, but it is a step to virtually everything else as well as being an end in its own right for many.

My point was mostly that use money as proxy for motivation isn't accurate. It's especially bad if you want to improve productivity. Paying people more necessarily increase people's motivation.

Even if you are very well paid, you are not likely to be satisfied if the job isn't leading in the direction you want. people leave higher paying jobs for lower paying jobs if they believe it will suit their agenda at the time.

I'm not in any way saying money isn't a motivation, but people have a tendency to dismiss other factors as insignificant when they certainly are not. It's a shame because business could improve worker happiness and productivity for a much lower cost if they had the right culture.

Kytro wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 2:59pm: They are still working for the money. I didn't say that money was the end-all, but it is a step to virtually everything else as well as being an end in its own right for many. My point was mostly that use money as proxy for motivation isn't accurate. It's especially bad if you want to improve productivity. Paying people more necessarily increase people's motivation. Even if you are very well paid, you are not likely to be satisfied if the job isn't leading in the direction you want. people leave higher paying jobs for lower paying jobs if they believe it will suit their agenda at the time. I'm not in any way saying money isn't a motivation, but people have a tendency to dismiss other factors as insignificant when they certainly are not. It's a shame because business could improve worker happiness and productivity for a much lower cost if they had the right culture.

Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money.

The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office! 

It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 8:16am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:02am: Phemanderac wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 6:27am: Fairness and Equity are not part of the deal... Nor is consistency, at least in our current economic system. A free market is the goal, yet, there needs to be some regulation as well apparently, meaning it is not truly a free market. The quest for fairness will only drive economic growth backwards - ostensibly because those with the biggest slice of the pie presently do not want anyone else having a fair share... That is our current economic model, which has also become our social and spiritual model.... There is only the economy! Politics of envy.... no uppity peasant should prosper mightily through hard work and commitment.. Hard work and commitment ends up making the peasant a NON-peasant.

Not at all. Hard work and commitment keeps peasants peasants. There are plenty of hard working peasants all over Asia, none of them with any hope of anything different.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 3:49pm:

It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient.

You've just provided the essential argument for equality, Maria.

Good work.

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth.

No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth.

Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things.

Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds.

And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand.

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand.

UNhinged misinterprets motivation, desire and passion for 'greed'. In his limited mindspace he equates achievement with greed.

UNhinged is not greedy.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 3:33pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 2:59pm: They are still working for the money. I didn't say that money was the end-all, but it is a step to virtually everything else as well as being an end in its own right for many. My point was mostly that use money as proxy for motivation isn't accurate. It's especially bad if you want to improve productivity. Paying people more necessarily increase people's motivation. Even if you are very well paid, you are not likely to be satisfied if the job isn't leading in the direction you want. people leave higher paying jobs for lower paying jobs if they believe it will suit their agenda at the time. I'm not in any way saying money isn't a motivation, but people have a tendency to dismiss other factors as insignificant when they certainly are not. It's a shame because business could improve worker happiness and productivity for a much lower cost if they had the right culture. Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money. The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office!  It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient.

Now, now - we can't destroy the high-flying execs can we?  You know what they say about plans - wouldn't give you ten cents for a truckload of 'em on the market.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand. UNhinged misinterprets motivation, desire and passion for 'greed'. In his limited mindspace he equates achievement with greed. UNhinged is not greedy.

I agree. Greed is a useful moral paradox, as Adam Smith intended, but it’s not the force that moves the economy.

Adam Smith’s focus was self interest, which is a better description of what motivates wage labourers or bean sellers who are, by and large, providing for their families.

Or how about housewives, dear? You keep a tidy home and make lovely meals for hubby, and you don’t get paid a thing.

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 5:59pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:47pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand. UNhinged misinterprets motivation, desire and passion for 'greed'. In his limited mindspace he equates achievement with greed. UNhinged is not greedy. I agree. Greed is a useful moral paradox, as Adam Smith intended, but it’s not the force that moves the economy. Adam Smith’s focus was self interest, which is a better description of what motivates wage labourers or bean sellers who are, by and large, providing for their families. Or how about housewives, dear? You keep a tidy home and make lovely meals for hubby, and you don’t get paid a thing.

Dream on troll. It is only recent months that I have been doing most of the cooking and cleaning and only because I am, retired. Before then, we shared duties, although he is a better cleaner than cook (to say the least!)

I’ll bet he’s a good bin emptier too, Maria. He should leave the cooking to we ladies, eh?

Men.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 5:59pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:47pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand. UNhinged misinterprets motivation, desire and passion for 'greed'. In his limited mindspace he equates achievement with greed. UNhinged is not greedy. I agree. Greed is a useful moral paradox, as Adam Smith intended, but it’s not the force that moves the economy. Adam Smith’s focus was self interest, which is a better description of what motivates wage labourers or bean sellers who are, by and large, providing for their families. Or how about housewives, dear? You keep a tidy home and make lovely meals for hubby, and you don’t get paid a thing. Dream on troll. It is only recent months that I have been doing most of the cooking and cleaning and only because I am, retired. Before then, we shared duties, although he is a better cleaner than cook (to say the least!)

DNFTT

Probably for the first time in human history, people can exist, thrive and breed without evolutionary pressure to work hard and succeed.

This is a dangerous situation for mankind.

If the species is to improve, there has to be evolutionary pressure that favours those who seek to improve.

When you can have a dozen kids whilst existing on welfare, making no contribution, smoking pot and being a chode and a scrub.......then the human race must go backwards.

despite all the political theory and social theory and blah blah blah....i breed horses and we cross the BEST with the BEST and hope for the BEST.  and that is simply NOT the way the modern human race is propagating .

Fairness drags us all down to the lowest common denominator.
It is a celebration of mediocrity.
Only free enterprise can save us and i fear it may already be too late  :D :D

All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective.

There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas.

This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures.

This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand. UNhinged misinterprets motivation, desire and passion for 'greed'. In his limited mindspace he equates achievement with greed. UNhinged is not greedy.

;D

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice.

The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory.

i suppose we could have all the horses in australia compete in the melbourne cup and finish in the same time.  That would be a good thing if we said to the slow horses....

train harder
eat more nutritious food
stop munching magic mushrooms and laying about all day whilst other horses are doing personal development.

But thats not what we say.

We say....


hi there fast horse, hi there black caviar, we are going to get a gun and blow one of your legs off so those mushroom eating, chode , horses (like kat, pansi, crook, the monk and all the other scrubs) dont feel so hateful and jealous of your talents.
I know it was magnificent watching you running at the head of the pack with your athleticism and great natural awe inspiring success, but it really upset those fatty good for nothing horses, and well,  we have to keep them happy after all and they've shown no inclination to partake in your regime of excellence.

thats how we do it Karmal.

How pitiful  ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 5:49am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. i suppose we could have all the horses in australia compete in the melbourne cup and finish in the same time.  That would be a good thing if we said to the slow horses.... train harder eat more nutritious food stop munching magic mushrooms and laying about all day whilst other horses are doing personal development. But thats not what we say. We say.... hi there fast horse, hi there black caviar, we are going to get a gun and blow one of your legs off so those mushroom eating, chode , horses (like kat, pansi, crook, the monk and all the other scrubs) dont feel so hateful and jealous of your talents. I know it was magnificent watching you running at the head of the pack with your athleticism and great natural awe inspiring success, but it really upset those fatty good for nothing horses, and well,  we have to keep them happy after all and they've shown no inclination to partake in your regime of excellence. thats how we do it Karmal. How pitiful  ;) ;)

http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/horses/smileys-horses-932008.gif

The propaganda that the "market" will bring fairness is entirely dishonest.

Perhaps our species idea of fairness is wrong to begin with. However, if we are going to be honest about getting rid of fairness, then false fairness measures like our entire legal system would need to go as well...

Consider, it might not be fair for a corporation to squeeze every last resource dollar out of a community that they exploit with the support of the law.... If the community fight back (which potentially could mean some suits get hurt) then the law says, that's not fair... Protecting the exploiters...

This is the fairness that our present political system upholds.

So fairness is not a genuine part of any equation, socially, economically or politically. With luck - being fair is a personal choice - sadly, it would seem for all to few regardless of their socio-economic standing.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 5:49am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. i suppose we could have all the horses in australia compete in the melbourne cup and finish in the same time.  That would be a good thing if we said to the slow horses.... train harder eat more nutritious food stop munching magic mushrooms and laying about all day whilst other horses are doing personal development. But thats not what we say. We say.... hi there fast horse, hi there black caviar, we are going to get a gun and blow one of your legs off so those mushroom eating, chode , horses (like kat, pansi, crook, the monk and all the other scrubs) dont feel so hateful and jealous of your talents. I know it was magnificent watching you running at the head of the pack with your athleticism and great natural awe inspiring success, but it really upset those fatty good for nothing horses, and well,  we have to keep them happy after all and they've shown no inclination to partake in your regime of excellence. thats how we do it Karmal. How pitiful  ;) ;)

Ironically, the other side of that coin is far more parallel with how we do "fair" presently...

The Black Caviars of the world get fetted to excess. Meanwhile, the slower lot get less and less of the necessities of life so they will only ever be average, despite any and all effort they might put in.

The ol' horse analogy cuts both ways.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:23am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. i suppose we could have all the horses in australia compete in the melbourne cup and finish in the same time.  That would be a good thing if we said to the slow horses.... train harder eat more nutritious food stop munching magic mushrooms and laying about all day whilst other horses are doing personal development. But thats not what we say. We say.... hi there fast horse, hi there black caviar, we are going to get a gun and blow one of your legs off so those mushroom eating, chode , horses (like kat, pansi, crook, the monk and all the other scrubs) dont feel so hateful and jealous of your talents. I know it was magnificent watching you running at the head of the pack with your athleticism and great natural awe inspiring success, but it really upset those fatty good for nothing horses, and well,  we have to keep them happy after all and they've shown no inclination to partake in your regime of excellence. thats how we do it Karmal. How pitiful  ;) ;) Ironically, the other side of that coin is far more parallel with how we do "fair" presently... The Black Caviars of the world get fetted to excess. Meanwhile, the slower lot get less and less of the necessities of life so they will only ever be average, despite any and all effort they might put in. The ol' horse analogy cuts both ways.

ive been to india and ive been to china.
The poor in these countries have a real reason to gripe (though they dont seem to).

I remain unconvinced that the poor in australia are being held back and trodden down.
i think its a rationalisation they use to remain in laziness mode.
ive simply seen too many people (migrants from vietnam who came here with nothing and who really pushed their kids through school), ive seen too many people succeed to believe that the poor should have success barriers.
I  really do put it down to laziness basicly.
the laziness comes first and the rationalisation comes second. people will always rationalise their behaviour to preserve their ego.

With our free education, great law and order, free libraries, very low unemployment (i mean 19 out of 20 people find a job)...with all this going for you.

If you live in australia
if you are healthy
If you are poor and are blaming the government, the economy, the boss, the "man" for holding you down.

you need to write this on a piece of paper and pin it on the bathroom mirror.

i"m a 40 yo healthy male
i live in australia
ive got nothing in the bank

I have...

messed up.

i believe in affirmations.
as long as you affirm the truth

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:23am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. i suppose we could have all the horses in australia compete in the melbourne cup and finish in the same time.  That would be a good thing if we said to the slow horses.... train harder eat more nutritious food stop munching magic mushrooms and laying about all day whilst other horses are doing personal development. But thats not what we say. We say.... hi there fast horse, hi there black caviar, we are going to get a gun and blow one of your legs off so those mushroom eating, chode , horses (like kat, pansi, crook, the monk and all the other scrubs) dont feel so hateful and jealous of your talents. I know it was magnificent watching you running at the head of the pack with your athleticism and great natural awe inspiring success, but it really upset those fatty good for nothing horses, and well,  we have to keep them happy after all and they've shown no inclination to partake in your regime of excellence. thats how we do it Karmal. How pitiful  ;) ;) Ironically, the other side of that coin is far more parallel with how we do "fair" presently... The Black Caviars of the world get fetted to excess. Meanwhile, the slower lot get less and less of the necessities of life so they will only ever be average, despite any and all effort they might put in. The ol' horse analogy cuts both ways.

So, the more you try, the more you get...seems fair.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:41am:

i believe in affirmations. as long as you affirm the truth

Trouble is, there is clearly no single truth...

So, who is the arbiter of truth?

Lots of people "work hard" and, the harsh reality is, most for not much return - yet you're not convinced that they're held back.

I am going to a funeral tomorrow for an old school friend who did nothing but work hard. Caring and providing for her children - she never gathered much in the way of wealth, but her kids are thriving young adults - she died far too young...

Gee and the real kicker now, her employers are looking for two people to employ now because she worked two jobs to make ends meet.

There is one of the side benefits of "hard work" that you seem ignorant to.

I truly hope one day that your waffle generator of inspirational quotes meets the real world one day, only not too harshly...

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:48am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 6:41am: i believe in affirmations. as long as you affirm the truth Trouble is, there is clearly no single truth... So, who is the arbiter of truth? Lots of people "work hard" and, the harsh reality is, most for not much return - yet you're not convinced that they're held back. I am going to a funeral tomorrow for an old school friend who did nothing but work hard. Caring and providing for her children - she never gathered much in the way of wealth, but her kids are thriving young adults - she died far too young... Gee and the real kicker now, her employers are looking for two people to employ now because she worked two jobs to make ends meet. There is one of the side benefits of "hard work" that you seem ignorant to. I truly hope one day that your waffle generator of inspirational quotes meets the real world one day, only not too harshly...

There are more ways to measure success than money.
i'd be willing to bet that she didnt complain very much and that she had a giving and contributing mentality.
So , when she affirms that she was successful , she is affirming the truth.

But what i dont see as true is this widespread belief amongst the poor that successful people dont want others to succeed. Excuse me , but this is frankly BS.
Most successful people want everyone to be successful.
Most black caviars dont run around all day kicking the asses of the slower horses.
But it is very disappointing when you are successful , and you genuinely try to help people get a leg up and they fail (again due to laziness usually) and then they rationalise it (as humans always do) and call the guy who tried to help them a prick.


Ask any successful person and i'll bet they have stories of family, friends, neighbours or randoms that they tried to help , who squandered the opportunity and turned it all around and bit the hand that fed them
again, this is just human nature at work.
It leads to successful people shutting down eventually and not really bothering.

if we look at someone like, say, a twiggy forrest , who really has put a lot of effort into helping aboriginals get a leg up, i'll bet that there are numerous cases of people who dropped out (through laziness) and then rationalised it as


twiggy is a prick
he used me
he wanted to keep me down
cry baby story.

result...a lose /lose.

i'll bet if twiggy got 1000 veitnamese boat arrivals and gave them high paying jobs and scholarships there would be a very different reaction.

people with entrenched success barriers are "lost".
you can see it in their eyes.
i could try to help many extreme lefties but , in the end, it would come to nought .
If i found someone like your friend who worked twice as hard i would reward her with lurks and perks   that were way above and beyond.
successful people love helping others be successful and have a great sense of social justice. I'll bet thats where twiggy is coming from too. from a higher place, from a place of contribution  ;) ;)

you are too cynical pharm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money. The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office!  It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient.

Yes, you need enough to cover your costs and provide some level of comfort. I made that point earlier, but I'm talking about what motivates us to want to work.

Sure, you could get by with people working just for the money, but your productivity will suffer as a result. A low paid worker might need money more than job satisfaction, but they will work harder if they have satisfaction.

At no point have I said money isn't important, but equally ignoring other motivations or discounting them as insignificant is a mistake.

Kytro wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 3:49pm: Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money. The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office!  It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient. Yes, you need enough to cover your costs and provide some level of comfort. I made that point earlier, but I'm talking about what motivates us to want to work. Sure, you could get by with people working just for the money, but your productivity will suffer as a result. A low paid worker might need money more than job satisfaction, but they will work harder if they have satisfaction. At no point have I said money isn't important, but equally ignoring other motivations or discounting them as insignificant is a mistake.

The motivation to work IS manifold - although I am guess few on this forum have much motivation to work!  Money is the prime motivator until such time as we are secure and can let our other motivators take the lead. For some it is an absolute fascination with the job they do. My husband is an engineer. He LIVES to build, to design and to find new ways of doing old things. He could take early retirement now if he wanted to - but he doesn't want to. He loves his job and the ability to do it without needing the money motivates him even more. Some are motivated by compassion for others. Bill Gates works hard - for other people. Ironically, a man who has given away $35B has seen his wealth INCREASE during that time by slightly more. He literally cannot give it away fast enough!

In short, the motivations for work, for starting a business and doing the extra bits is often money primarily and for many there are other very powerful reasons as well. I could have retired 20 years ago - but didn't. I didn't want to. And now, I am exploring avenues of work to do part-time.

Thanks for a well-considered debate. It is a rarity on here.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 8:09am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 7:52am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 3:49pm: Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money. The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office!  It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient. Yes, you need enough to cover your costs and provide some level of comfort. I made that point earlier, but I'm talking about what motivates us to want to work. Sure, you could get by with people working just for the money, but your productivity will suffer as a result. A low paid worker might need money more than job satisfaction, but they will work harder if they have satisfaction. At no point have I said money isn't important, but equally ignoring other motivations or discounting them as insignificant is a mistake. The motivation to work IS manifold - although I am guess few on this forum have much motivation to work!  Money is the prime motivator until such time as we are secure and can let our other motivators take the lead. For some it is an absolute fascination with the job they do. My husband is an engineer. He LIVES to build, to design and to find new ways of doing old things. He could take early retirement now if he wanted to - but he doesn't want to. He loves his job and the ability to do it without needing the money motivates him even more. Some are motivated by compassion for others. Bill Gates works hard - for other people. Ironically, a man who has given away $35B has seen his wealth INCREASE during that time by slightly more. He literally cannot give it away fast enough! In short, the motivations for work, for starting a business and doing the extra bits is often money primarily and for many there are other very powerful reasons as well. I could have retired 20 years ago - but didn't. I didn't want to. And now, I am exploring avenues of work to do part-time. Thanks for a well-considered debate. It is a rarity on here.

bill gates hand outs are fully tax deductible

he literally ' can not give it away ' fast enough it good business

wake up china

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 8:12am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:09am: Kytro wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 7:52am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 3:49pm: Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money. The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office!  It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient. Yes, you need enough to cover your costs and provide some level of comfort. I made that point earlier, but I'm talking about what motivates us to want to work. Sure, you could get by with people working just for the money, but your productivity will suffer as a result. A low paid worker might need money more than job satisfaction, but they will work harder if they have satisfaction. At no point have I said money isn't important, but equally ignoring other motivations or discounting them as insignificant is a mistake. The motivation to work IS manifold - although I am guess few on this forum have much motivation to work!  Money is the prime motivator until such time as we are secure and can let our other motivators take the lead. For some it is an absolute fascination with the job they do. My husband is an engineer. He LIVES to build, to design and to find new ways of doing old things. He could take early retirement now if he wanted to - but he doesn't want to. He loves his job and the ability to do it without needing the money motivates him even more. Some are motivated by compassion for others. Bill Gates works hard - for other people. Ironically, a man who has given away $35B has seen his wealth INCREASE during that time by slightly more. He literally cannot give it away fast enough! In short, the motivations for work, for starting a business and doing the extra bits is often money primarily and for many there are other very powerful reasons as well. I could have retired 20 years ago - but didn't. I didn't want to. And now, I am exploring avenues of work to do part-time. Thanks for a well-considered debate. It is a rarity on here. bill gates hand outs are fully tax deductible he literally ' can not give it away ' fast enough it good business wake up china namaste

Only to a dope like you is giving away $35B for a $10B tax refund 'good business'.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

it_is_the_light wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:12am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:09am: Kytro wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 7:52am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 3:49pm: Satisfaction being more important than money is the province of people who have plenty of the latter. Try telling a low-paid worker with 4 kids what is most important - job satisfaction or money. The point is that motivations for business etc are varying, but money ranks top in the vast majority.  And you don't think money is a motivation for productivity?  See what happens when you pay workers on the basis of output rather than time in the office!  It seems very tasteless, but money is still the primary motivator behind employment, business and related activities.  When it stops being the prime motivator it is usually because they have sufficient. Yes, you need enough to cover your costs and provide some level of comfort. I made that point earlier, but I'm talking about what motivates us to want to work. Sure, you could get by with people working just for the money, but your productivity will suffer as a result. A low paid worker might need money more than job satisfaction, but they will work harder if they have satisfaction. At no point have I said money isn't important, but equally ignoring other motivations or discounting them as insignificant is a mistake. The motivation to work IS manifold - although I am guess few on this forum have much motivation to work!  Money is the prime motivator until such time as we are secure and can let our other motivators take the lead. For some it is an absolute fascination with the job they do. My husband is an engineer. He LIVES to build, to design and to find new ways of doing old things. He could take early retirement now if he wanted to - but he doesn't want to. He loves his job and the ability to do it without needing the money motivates him even more. Some are motivated by compassion for others. Bill Gates works hard - for other people. Ironically, a man who has given away $35B has seen his wealth INCREASE during that time by slightly more. He literally cannot give it away fast enough! In short, the motivations for work, for starting a business and doing the extra bits is often money primarily and for many there are other very powerful reasons as well. I could have retired 20 years ago - but didn't. I didn't want to. And now, I am exploring avenues of work to do part-time. Thanks for a well-considered debate. It is a rarity on here. bill gates hand outs are fully tax deductible he literally ' can not give it away ' fast enough it good business wake up china namaste Only to a dope like you is giving away $35B for a $10B tax refund 'good business'.

lets have your link there thanks

you are a proven mere repeater so lets have your evidence

namaste

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 5:49am:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory.

While some political theories push for this, it's not the point. The point is reducing inequality.

And it's not me saying this, it's the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and a host of institutions and global forums. The growing divide between rich and poor is a major issue globally right now, second perhaps to climate change.

The two issues, however, are interrelated. The rich and the poor produce more carbon emissions than those in between. Countries with large urban middle classes produce less CO2 than ones that don't.

Poor rural people clear rainforests and burn firewood. The rich have multiple homes and use more energy.

The middle-classes live in high density dwellings and have less kids. Cities are far more sustainable than either rural poverty or the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Energy and transport is more concentrated and efficient. Societies that cultivate their middle class produce far less CO2 emissions than ones that don't.

Reducing social inequality is not only good for economies, it's good for the environment.

Less kids less emissions and you can only live in one house at a time so that's the same emissions as one house.

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:21am:

The propaganda that the "market" will bring fairness is entirely dishonest.

Left to itself, the "market" doesn't bring fairness, it brings monopolies. Monopolies are the greatest source of unfairness, as all freemarket theorists argue.

Monopolies produce fiefdoms and corruption, but they can also be a far more efficient way of producing goods. Why have hundreds of factories producing ball bearings, when one can do it all? This is why the "market" tends to gravitate towards monopolies, but the biggest cause is politics.

Take News Ltd. Its business model is based on dominating national news coverage. News Ltd backs political candidates and uses its newspapers and TV stations to get them elected. It then lobbies governments to skew media laws in its favour, as if such political bribery could ever be seen as "lobbying". News Ltd keeps dirt files on its political enemies. It has destroyed many politicians and public figures through tabloid sex scandals and mere allegations of corruption. A number of scandals have been prevented after back room agreements. In the UK, Tony Blair's staff and Gordon Brown have disclosed details of blackmail.

In the UK, much of the information obtained by News Ltd was gathered illegally - a massive surveillance network that was deliberately covered up by the police over many years.

It works both ways. News Ltd is the go-to source for politicians giving leaks and breaking stories. If a friendly politician doesn't use a News journalist, News gets stroppy. With its monopoly over the Fleet Street tabloids, News Ltd holds many politicians over a barrel. Those it doesn't are subject to its dirt file, its hit list. News Ltd editors like Andy Coulson boast over the number of political careers they have destroyed, and this is a huge source of power.

Rupert Murdoch is a freemarket ideologue, but in reality, he's a pragmatist. He will go with whatever political party that will further his company's interests. His son James, the new CEO, is reported to be a much bigger freemarket zealot. Where News Ltd's media monopoly will go when Rupert dies is anyone's guess.

Such monopolies are a tendency of modern capitalism - particularly in information, which requires networks and distribution chains. News Ltd has been able to dominate daily newspapers because news there is highly centralized - newspapers are produced in London and, historically, were distributed throughout England by train. This was much harder in the US, where newspapers are published in capital cities, great distances apart. All this is changing as print news moves online. Media monopolies are now much easier to run. The new media buzzword is "synergy" - different publications sharing the same stories. Local news is slowly dying out as print news gradually becomes centralized in one national location.

Monopolies are created through a combination of political favour and the capitalist tendency towards centralized production. They are what you get when the "market" rules. Capitalism is not about competition, but monopolization.

If economies were really competitive, we may well have the sort of equality of opportunity and share-ownership the freemarket utopians champion.

But we don't. The biggest freemarket ideologues own the biggest global monopolies. They only argue for competition when it's in their own interests. The Murdochs, the Koch brothers, the Russian oligarchs and Chinese princelings, are protectionists. The last thing those who run the world want is free markets.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 6:41am:

ive been to india and ive been to china. The poor in these countries have a real reason to gripe (though they dont seem to). I remain unconvinced that the poor in australia are being held back and trodden down. i think its a rationalisation they use to remain in laziness mode. ive simply seen too many people (migrants from vietnam who came here with nothing and who really pushed their kids through school), ive seen too many people succeed to believe that the poor should have success barriers. I  really do put it down to laziness basicly. the laziness comes first and the rationalisation comes second. people will always rationalise their behaviour to preserve their ego. With our free education, great law and order, free libraries, very low unemployment (i mean 19 out of 20 people find a job)...with all this going for you. If you live in australia if you are healthy If you are poor and are blaming the government, the economy, the boss, the "man" for holding you down. you need to write this on a piece of paper and pin it on the bathroom mirror. i"m a 40 yo healthy male i live in australia ive got nothing in the bank I have... messed up. i believe in affirmations. as long as you affirm the truth

I would have to agree.. When i went to school, there were a lot of poor asian family..kids that were being sent to school with a apple... the teachers had to buy these kids food because these family were so broke...but those kids worked a lot harder than any children i saw and the few i kept in touch with, have achieved a lot..

It just seems, that a lot of Poor Australians accept they are poor and do very little about it.. the most they do is vote labor and complain they don't get paid enough... i never saw these asian family or kids complained and they eventually made it to middle class.

I fully agree that in 95% of the case where mental illness or drug abuse isn't involved there is nothing holding the poor back from succeeding..

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand.

How much of our economy do you think is based on food production?

Do you think population growth is driving China's boom?

What do you think happened to European economies in the middle ages following great plagues that reduced the population?

Karnal wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 11:20am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. While some political theories push for this, it's not the point. The point is reducing inequality. And it's not me saying this, it's the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and a host of institutions and global forums. The growing divide between rich and poor is a major issue globally right now, second perhaps to climate change. The two issues, however, are interrelated. The rich and the poor produce more carbon emissions than those in between. Countries with large urban middle classes produce less CO2 than ones that don't. Poor rural people clear rainforests and burn firewood. The rich have multiple homes and use more energy. The middle-classes live in high density dwellings and have less kids. Cities are far more sustainable than either rural poverty or the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Energy and transport is more concentrated and efficient. Societies that cultivate their middle class produce far less CO2 emissions than ones that don't. Reducing social inequality is not only good for economies, it's good for the environment.

Why is growing inequality is such a bad thing? Looking at countries with low inequality like pre 1980s China and 1950-1990s USSR vs High inequality states like 1950s-1990s United states, Lower inequality didnt aid or help with economy and the US was by far more environmental than the USSR..

Karnal wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:11pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 6:21am: The propaganda that the "market" will bring fairness is entirely dishonest. Left to itself, the "market" doesn't bring fairness, it brings monopolies. Monopolies are the greatest source of unfairness, as all freemarket theorists argue. Monopolies produce fiefdoms and corruption, but they can also be a far more efficient way of producing goods. Why have hundreds of factories producing ball bearings, when one can do it all? This is why the "market" tends to gravitate towards monopolies, but the biggest cause is politics. Take News Ltd. Its business model is based on dominating national news coverage. News Ltd backs political candidates and uses its newspapers and TV stations to get them elected. It then lobbies governments to skew media laws in its favour, as if such political bribery could ever be seen as "lobbying". News Ltd keeps dirt files on its political enemies. It has destroyed many politicians and public figures through tabloid sex scandals and mere allegations of corruption. A number of scandals have been prevented after back room agreements. In the UK, Tony Blair's staff and Gordon Brown have disclosed details of blackmail. In the UK, much of the information obtained by News Ltd was gathered illegally - a massive surveillance network that was deliberately covered up by the police over many years. It works both ways. News Ltd is the go-to source for politicians giving leaks and breaking stories. If a friendly politician doesn't use a News journalist, News gets stroppy. With its monopoly over the Fleet Street tabloids, News Ltd holds many politicians over a barrel. Those it doesn't are subject to its dirt file, its hit list. News Ltd editors like Andy Coulson boast over the number of political careers they have destroyed, and this is a huge source of power. Rupert Murdoch is a freemarket ideologue, but in reality, he's a pragmatist. He will go with whatever political party that will further his company's interests. His son James, the new CEO, is reported to be a much bigger freemarket zealot. Where News Ltd's media monopoly will go when Rupert dies is anyone's guess. Such monopolies are a tendency of modern capitalism - particularly in information, which requires networks and distribution chains. News Ltd has been able to dominate daily newspapers because news there is highly centralized - newspapers are produced in London and, historically, were distributed throughout England by train. This was much harder in the US, where newspapers are published in capital cities, great distances apart. All this is changing as print news moves online. Media monopolies are now much easier to run. The new media buzzword is "synergy" - different publications sharing the same stories. Local news is slowly dying out as print news gradually becomes centralized in one national location. Monopolies are created through a combination of political favour and the capitalist tendency towards centralized production. They are what you get when the "market" rules. Capitalism is not about competition, but monopolization. If economies were really competitive, we may well have the sort of equality of opportunity and share-ownership the freemarket utopians champion. But we don't. The biggest freemarket ideologues own the biggest global monopolies. They only argue for competition when it's in their own interests. The Murdochs, the Koch brothers, the Russian oligarchs and Chinese princelings, are protectionists. The last thing those who run the world want is free markets.

I think you will find.. that Socialism is the champion of monopolization than capitalism is...No system is perfect and our current system is a very corrupt system because our once decently regulated market that kept unchecked by regulations has slowly been dismantled by both sides of the coin, But compared to the alternatives its the best we got.

Pantheon wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 6:41am: ive been to india and ive been to china. The poor in these countries have a real reason to gripe (though they dont seem to). I remain unconvinced that the poor in australia are being held back and trodden down. i think its a rationalisation they use to remain in laziness mode. ive simply seen too many people (migrants from vietnam who came here with nothing and who really pushed their kids through school), ive seen too many people succeed to believe that the poor should have success barriers. I  really do put it down to laziness basicly. the laziness comes first and the rationalisation comes second. people will always rationalise their behaviour to preserve their ego. With our free education, great law and order, free libraries, very low unemployment (i mean 19 out of 20 people find a job)...with all this going for you. If you live in australia if you are healthy If you are poor and are blaming the government, the economy, the boss, the "man" for holding you down. you need to write this on a piece of paper and pin it on the bathroom mirror. i"m a 40 yo healthy male i live in australia ive got nothing in the bank I have... messed up. i believe in affirmations. as long as you affirm the truth I would have to agree.. When i went to school, there were a lot of poor asian family..kids that were being sent to school with a apple... the teachers had to buy these kids food because these family were so broke...but those kids worked a lot harder than any children i saw and the few i kept in touch with, have achieved a lot.. It just seems, that a lot of Poor Australians accept they are poor and do very little about it.. the most they do is vote labor and complain they don't get paid enough... i never saw these asian family or kids complained and they eventually made it to middle class. I fully agree that in 95% of the case where mental illness or drug abuse isn't involved there is nothing holding the poor back from succeeding..

in a bizarre sort of way, they may be the ones on the right track.
working hard (since man crawled out of the primordial slime) has been about making your DNA , your sperm and eggs, more likely to flourish.
is it worth it to push yourself hard in modern western society.....

Its a serious question.

when you can propagate your DNA, be well fed (to the point of obesity),  numb your brain with drugs and alcohol and playstation , and be compensated for rooting and having lots of kids...it may be that its not worth it.

That, in fact, if i want to preach "self development " i should advice living the Durrrrrrrrrrrr existence.

Getting people out of the Durrrrrrr existence would be a lot easier if governments would put some evolutionary pressure on society. But they seem hell bent on keeping people stuck in Durrrrrr mode.

I'll keep swimming upstream but i fully sympathise with those who have decided to just chillax. ;) ;)

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 4:15pm: Sun Tzu wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why? Greed is the only driver of economic growth. No, Sun Tzu, a growing population and an increase in productivity are the central factors in economic growth. Greed is a marginal motivation. The big drivers in the economy are still food production, energy and construction. As a consumer, you can only eat, do and dwell so much. Economics is about the distribution of these things. Financial services and intellectual property are different, but they are equally finite. One person on one income can only save so much money, or consume so much of a patented product like pharmaceuticals. The greed factor - marketing - is about turning more and more people onto such products, or about finding new uses for old products. Most growth in new drug patent applications is about finding new uses for existing drugs. Most growth in financial products is about poaching existing customers from other banks or hedge funds. And so the world turns. The only real growth is in population, which increases demand. How much of our economy do you think is based on food production?

A hell of a lot. From the patents for seeds to the chemicals for farming to transport and distribution, food is one of the biggest industries in the world.

And don't forget fast food companies like McDonalds and processed food companies like Nestle. Food and pharmaceuticals are two of the biggest global industries.

As every schoolboy knows.

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:29pm:

How much of our economy do you think is based on food production?

About 2.4%

Pantheon wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 11:20am: aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. While some political theories push for this, it's not the point. The point is reducing inequality. And it's not me saying this, it's the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and a host of institutions and global forums. The growing divide between rich and poor is a major issue globally right now, second perhaps to climate change. The two issues, however, are interrelated. The rich and the poor produce more carbon emissions than those in between. Countries with large urban middle classes produce less CO2 than ones that don't. Poor rural people clear rainforests and burn firewood. The rich have multiple homes and use more energy. The middle-classes live in high density dwellings and have less kids. Cities are far more sustainable than either rural poverty or the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Energy and transport is more concentrated and efficient. Societies that cultivate their middle class produce far less CO2 emissions than ones that don't. Reducing social inequality is not only good for economies, it's good for the environment. Why is growing inequality is such a bad thing? Looking at countries with low inequality like pre 1980s China and 1950-1990s USSR vs High inequality states like 1950s-1990s United states, Lower inequality didnt aid or help with economy and the US was by far more environmental than the USSR..

You're comparing developing and developed economies. You might as well compare medieval Europe with Aboriginal settlement.

But in the 1950s, the USSR had high growth and, compared to undeveloped countries (like China), a high average living standard. The USSR propped up a number of developing economies during this time. It became an economic basket case in the 1980s.

Command economies have their benefits, particularly in the transition towards development.

Growing inequality can be the sign of a sign of a struggling economy. Growing inequality leads to social and political unrest, if not upheaval.

The elite need to understand that when the working class are happy they are happy. Wake yourself up 24/7, 365 days a year and do a job you hate . It's hard. It's easier when you feel that your children have a future.

Karnal wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice.

Bollox, PB.

Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is".

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 5:37pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. Bollox, PB. Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is".

You studied at the University of Balogney, old dear, so this should be an easy question for you.

Which political-economic theory advocates inequality? And which modern social political models don’t focus on equality?

Have a stab, old chap.

Ever yours,

PB.

Quote:

A hell of a lot. From the patents for seeds to the chemicals for farming to transport and distribution, food is one of the biggest industries in the world.

It is down from close to 100% to under 3%, and still falling.


Quote:

Command economies have their benefits, particularly in the transition towards development.

They tend to hinder development. Most of the "advances" under early communist Russia were the result of forcing people off the land and into industrial centres - something they had already done voluntarily elsewhere. It was a huge advance on the old system of overcrowded farmland and not much to do, but it was only ever going to be a poor imitation of what happened elsewhere. You can get rapid and sustainable improvement by simply allowing people to do it themselves. This is no different to the standard benign dictatorship fantasy that the government can manage the end product better (do you think we have 'finished'?). Russia has fallen in a heap precisely because the government managed the transition. Now they have to start from scratch and do it properly.


Quote:

Growing inequality can be the sign of a sign of a struggling economy.

Or a booming one. Or a steady one. Or no economy at all. Or crushing dictatorship. Or liberal freedom. I suppose it's a bit like reading tea leaves.

Karnal wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 8:15pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:37pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. Bollox, PB. Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is". You studied at the University of Balogney, old dear, so this should be an easy question for you. Which political-economic theory advocates inequality? And which modern social political models don’t focus on equality? Have a stab, old chap. Ever yours, PB.

EFF Off Pb.

That is NOT what you said.

What you said is highlighted.

Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:15pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:37pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. Bollox, PB. Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is". You studied at the University of Balogney, old dear, so this should be an easy question for you. Which political-economic theory advocates inequality? And which modern social political models don’t focus on equality? Have a stab, old chap. Ever yours, PB. EFF Off Pb. That is NOT what you said. What you said is highlighted. Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid.

So utilise your marvellous university education and tell us all which economic theories don’t seek to maximise prosperity for all, dear chap.

In the words of your prophetess, please explain.

Referring to the OP, I think that demand is the only real driver of economic growth.
You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear; nations whose only exports are coconuts and mangos probably won't achieve great wealth across the board.

On the other hand, oil rich nations tend to do very well across the board...go figure!

But what happens if oil loses it's worth and those coconuts and mangos are now in great demand?

Of course, the ability to climb a coconut tree would then become a great commodity. Fairness will follow that the price for picking coconuts will increase accordingly.

IMO, we have far too many industries that produce absolutely nothing at all of real value. Annoying advertising, entertainment, superfluous welfare, superfluous studies, legal, etc., serve only to drag down economies built upon hard work.

Amadd wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 11:41pm:

Referring to the OP, I think that demand is the only real driver of economic growth. You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear; nations whose only exports are coconuts and mangos probably won't achieve great wealth across the board. On the other hand, oil rich nations tend to do very well across the board...go figure! But what happens if oil loses it's worth and those coconuts and mangos are now in great demand? Of course, the ability to climb a coconut tree would then become a great commodity. Fairness will follow that the price for picking coconuts will increase accordingly. IMO, we have far too many industries that produce absolutely nothing at all of real value. Annoying advertising, entertainment, superfluous welfare, superfluous studies, legal, etc., serve only to drag down economies built upon hard work.

In 16th century Holland, tulips were in demand - so much so that at one point, bulbs reached the price of a house.

Can you imagine? Tulips. And no advertising - all word of mouth.

Demand is a strange thing.

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 8:26pm:

It is down from close to 100% to under 3%, and still falling.

Quote:

Euromonitor International reckons the packaged food industry–including everything from pasta and cooking oil to canned and frozen foods–is worth almost $1.6 trillion. Meanwhile, the World Bank puts the food and agriculture sector at 10% of global gross domestic product, which, taking the bank’s 2006 estimate of about $48 trillion, would make the sector worth about $4.8 trillion.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/11/growth-agriculture-business-forbeslife-food07-cx_sm_1113bigfood.html

Pantheon wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

Is fairness and equality a great driver of economic growth.. I'm honestly not too sure.. If you do explain why?

When I was child living in China in 1980s, there was absolute fairness in the communism society. Every body in my parents generation earned roughly $1-$2 a day. It doesn't matter are you a labor / manager / senior officials, even leaders to 10,000 people in big organizations.

Absolute fairness = absolute poorness.

Because nobody would have any motivation to create any value. You do more you lose more to other lazy guys.

Now, it is changed to absolutely unfair. 5% poorest to 5% richer's income ratios probably worse than 1:1000.  The problem now is completely moral corruption in China. Poorest dare to do anything to challenge the bad social order, the richest dare to do anything to keep themselves in power. That's another poo.

I guess the best is to have 10% poorest to 10% richest's income in a range to 1:10 - 1:3. e.g. if retailler job in MacDonalds' earns $20 /hour, professors in uni should earn $60-$200/hour. But dentists should be counted as labor but not doctors  ;D

Karnal wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

Pantheon wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 12:33pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 11:20am: aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. While some political theories push for this, it's not the point. The point is reducing inequality. And it's not me saying this, it's the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and a host of institutions and global forums. The growing divide between rich and poor is a major issue globally right now, second perhaps to climate change. The two issues, however, are interrelated. The rich and the poor produce more carbon emissions than those in between. Countries with large urban middle classes produce less CO2 than ones that don't. Poor rural people clear rainforests and burn firewood. The rich have multiple homes and use more energy. The middle-classes live in high density dwellings and have less kids. Cities are far more sustainable than either rural poverty or the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Energy and transport is more concentrated and efficient. Societies that cultivate their middle class produce far less CO2 emissions than ones that don't. Reducing social inequality is not only good for economies, it's good for the environment. Why is growing inequality is such a bad thing? Looking at countries with low inequality like pre 1980s China and 1950-1990s USSR vs High inequality states like 1950s-1990s United states, Lower inequality didnt aid or help with economy and the US was by far more environmental than the USSR.. You're comparing developing and developed economies. You might as well compare medieval Europe with Aboriginal settlement. But in the 1950s, the USSR had high growth and, compared to undeveloped countries (like China), a high average living standard. The USSR propped up a number of developing economies during this time. It became an economic basket case in the 1980s. Command economies have their benefits, particularly in the transition towards development. Growing inequality can be the sign of a sign of a struggling economy. Growing inequality leads to social and political unrest, if not upheaval.

I would totally agree with you if we were talking about pre-capitlaism years.. Since then we have seen Growing inequality coupled with rising wages for the poor, increasing living standards 

Command economies tend to hinder development...

freediver wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

They tend to hinder development. Most of the "advances" under early communist Russia were the result of forcing people off the land and into industrial centres - something they had already done voluntarily elsewhere. It was a huge advance on the old system of overcrowded farmland and not much to do, but it was only ever going to be a poor imitation of what happened elsewhere. You can get rapid and sustainable improvement by simply allowing people to do it themselves. This is no different to the standard benign dictatorship fantasy that the government can manage the end product better (do you think we have 'finished'?). Russia has fallen in a heap precisely because the government managed the transition. Now they have to start from scratch and do it properly.

We had Growing inequality during the boom times where everyone from the poor to the rich saw their share of the pie increase in size rather than percentage, like freediver said Or a booming one. Or a steady one. Or no economy at all. Or crushing dictatorship. Or liberal freedom. I suppose it's a bit like reading tea leaves.

The same applies in my workplace, Asian. Everyone earns the same.

And do you know? The standard of work is radically different. Some are followers, some are ambitious, some are cuthroats, some stand alone. We have no real performance targets, no incentives and no pay difference. We work to award.

Everyone earns what they need, but their motivations are different. I’ve never heard anyone whinge about the pay.

Pantheon wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 11:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 4:38pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 12:33pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 11:20am: aquascoot wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective. There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas. This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. While some political theories push for this, it's not the point. The point is reducing inequality. And it's not me saying this, it's the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and a host of institutions and global forums. The growing divide between rich and poor is a major issue globally right now, second perhaps to climate change. The two issues, however, are interrelated. The rich and the poor produce more carbon emissions than those in between. Countries with large urban middle classes produce less CO2 than ones that don't. Poor rural people clear rainforests and burn firewood. The rich have multiple homes and use more energy. The middle-classes live in high density dwellings and have less kids. Cities are far more sustainable than either rural poverty or the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Energy and transport is more concentrated and efficient. Societies that cultivate their middle class produce far less CO2 emissions than ones that don't. Reducing social inequality is not only good for economies, it's good for the environment. Why is growing inequality is such a bad thing? Looking at countries with low inequality like pre 1980s China and 1950-1990s USSR vs High inequality states like 1950s-1990s United states, Lower inequality didnt aid or help with economy and the US was by far more environmental than the USSR.. You're comparing developing and developed economies. You might as well compare medieval Europe with Aboriginal settlement. But in the 1950s, the USSR had high growth and, compared to undeveloped countries (like China), a high average living standard. The USSR propped up a number of developing economies during this time. It became an economic basket case in the 1980s. Command economies have their benefits, particularly in the transition towards development. Growing inequality can be the sign of a sign of a struggling economy. Growing inequality leads to social and political unrest, if not upheaval. I would totally agree with you if we were talking about pre-capitlaism years.. Since then we have seen Growing inequality coupled with rising wages for the poor, increasing living standards  Command economies tend to hinder development... freediver wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 4:38pm: They tend to hinder development. Most of the "advances" under early communist Russia were the result of forcing people off the land and into industrial centres - something they had already done voluntarily elsewhere. It was a huge advance on the old system of overcrowded farmland and not much to do, but it was only ever going to be a poor imitation of what happened elsewhere. You can get rapid and sustainable improvement by simply allowing people to do it themselves. This is no different to the standard benign dictatorship fantasy that the government can manage the end product better (do you think we have 'finished'?). Russia has fallen in a heap precisely because the government managed the transition. Now they have to start from scratch and do it properly. We had Growing inequality during the boom times where everyone from the poor to the rich saw their share of the pie increase in size rather than percentage, like freediver said Or a booming one. Or a steady one. Or no economy at all. Or crushing dictatorship. Or liberal freedom. I suppose it's a bit like reading tea leaves.

When we talk about growing inequality, we’re raising a recent phenomenon. Wages growth a productivity shot up in the post-war boom, in line with the rise of the welfare state and population growth, the baby boom. The post-war boom ceased in the early 1970s. English-speaking countries responded with shifts in policy that increased inequality - lowered taxes, privatisation, corporatisation. The developing world followed suit and attracted loans and investment, which initiated its own boom, otherwise known as capital flight, or offshoring. Manufacturing moved east. Our own economies merged into services. The post-war boom years ended, and with them, the reasonably equal society we had. Back then, middle managers made about 60% more than their average employees.

Today, that figure has raised to over 300%. For senior managers, the figure has exploded.

In Australia, the policies of the Hawke/Keating governments saw growing inequality, but this only tells part of the story. These policies also saw the rise of real wages for all. Most importantly, our purchasing power grew as our terms of trade were lowered. While CEO salaries and the profits of the rich grew, real wages grew too. Inequality rose, but so did average living standards.

This sets us apart from the US and UK, where minimum wages remained at below poverty levels. At the same time, particularly in the US, the bulk of wealth was placed into fewer and fewer hands, from Reagan to Clinton to Bush Jnr. And now, this momentum is continuing under Obama.

The real story, however, is the transfer of manufacturing to the developing world - the reason we can now afford goods that, back in the 1970s were considered luxury goods - big TVs, computers, even whitegoods. Clothing is a fraction of the cost excluding inflation. You can now buy a mobile phone in Australia for the price of two packets of smokes.

This is the result of two things - rising productivity and cheap labor. In China, many people still live on one to two dollars aday. In the Pilippines, this is the minimum wage. While inequality hasn’t blown out of control in Australia, we’ve outsourced that inequality to the developing world.

Economics is about delivering the greatest good to the greatest number of people. It’s not about granting wealth to an ever-decreasing class of people- this is just the reintroduction of feudalism. In Australia, while inequality has risen, we’ve also managed to deliver more good to the greatest number, but at the expense of the slave labourers who produce our clothes, much of our food and, to a large extent, our manufactured goods.

Is fairness a great driver of economic growth..

If you were to look at the performance of the corporate world you have have to conclude the exact opposite is the case.

The current corporate experience is characterised by little integrity no honesty and a desire to disadvantage employees at every opportunity.

Greed is good.

Ha!  capitalism.  You mean the kind that capitalizes the profits, and socialise the losses? 

Quote:

So utilise your marvellous university education and tell us all which economic theories don’t seek to maximise prosperity for all, dear chap.

Are you familiar with the distinction between the normative and the positive Karnal?


Quote:

Economics is about delivering the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

Crap. It is about understanding the reality of the marketplace.


Quote:

In Australia, while inequality has risen, we’ve also managed to deliver more good to the greatest number, but at the expense of the slave labourers who produce our clothes, much of our food and, to a large extent, our manufactured goods.

Are you suggesting they are worse off because we buy stuff from them? Do you support protectionist movements that would see us buy less from them? The feeble minded would have you believe this benefits us, and you seem to think it would even benefit them.

Do you think population growth is driving China's boom?

What do you think happened to European economies in the middle ages following great plagues that reduced the population?

Do you think Russia is better off today because a socialist government "managed" the transition to industrialisation?

Karnal wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

The same applies in my workplace, Asian. Everyone earns the same. And do you know? The standard of work is radically different. Some are followers, some are ambitious, some are cuthroats, some stand alone. We have no real performance targets, no incentives and no pay difference. We work to award. Everyone earns what they need, but their motivations are different. I’ve never heard anyone whinge about the pay.

Do you think your case applies to the entire Australia on the  total population? Or do you think it only works for 5% of people? I don't doubt there are very nice people work for awards / reputation or even just fun. But it won't work as a system.

Depend on idealism to live is very dangerous. It's proved in communist and Islamic countries and middle ages in Europe.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

Greed is good.

Greed gives freedom, braveness and visions, you become smarter.

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

Ha!  capitalism.  You mean the kind that capitalizes the profits, and socialise the losses?

The kind you will probably never participate in with that attitude.

Karnal wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:15pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:37pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. Bollox, PB. Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is". You studied at the University of Balogney, old dear, so this should be an easy question for you. Which political-economic theory advocates inequality? And which modern social political models don’t focus on equality? Have a stab, old chap. Ever yours, PB. EFF Off Pb. That is NOT what you said. What you said is highlighted. Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid. which economic theories don’t seek to maximise prosperity for all, dear chap.

EFF Off Pb.

That is NOT what you said.

What you said is highlighted.

Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid.

Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 5:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 9:22pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:15pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:37pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. Bollox, PB. Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is". You studied at the University of Balogney, old dear, so this should be an easy question for you. Which political-economic theory advocates inequality? And which modern social political models don’t focus on equality? Have a stab, old chap. Ever yours, PB. EFF Off Pb. That is NOT what you said. What you said is highlighted. Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid. which economic theories don’t seek to maximise prosperity for all, dear chap. EFF Off Pb. That is NOT what you said. What you said is highlighted. Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid.

As you can see, he studied at the prestigious University of Balogney.

He majored in.Redemption - am I right, old chap?

Ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce the old boy.

Karnal wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 10:51pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 12th, 2015 at 5:14pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 9:22pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 9:03pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 8:15pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 5:37pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures. This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. Bollox, PB. Not every economic theory is aiming for communism - which is what "prosperity for all in equal measure is". You studied at the University of Balogney, old dear, so this should be an easy question for you. Which political-economic theory advocates inequality? And which modern social political models don’t focus on equality? Have a stab, old chap. Ever yours, PB. EFF Off Pb. That is NOT what you said. What you said is highlighted. Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid. which economic theories don’t seek to maximise prosperity for all, dear chap. EFF Off Pb. That is NOT what you said. What you said is highlighted. Don't ALWAYS be dishonest AND stupid. As you can see, he studied at the prestigious University of Balogney. He majored in.Redemption - am I right, old chap? Ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce the old boy.

Evasive, dishonest, lying little PB.    'Helping families' to be dishonest, evasive an lying in SW Sydney.


A turd AND a turd burgler. Bravo.