ALL STRIKES CANCELLED EXCEPT BRIDGEWATER

[borders]

Many of the posts above seem to hinge on pay being the solution to getting a good service. What rot. Pay alone isn't the answer and dreams of a leftie utopia are just that - dreams. Not mine either, thankfully.

And no British business didn't die because of thatcher. It was already dead because other countries could do it cheaper and Thatcher was sick of propping up industries that lost money. Quite right and good riddance. Many of those industries kept striking until they killed their own jobs. Again, good riddance.

actually the idea that Capitalism can provide us all with a Utopian lifestyle is the dream , international Socialism has never been tried , that is on a global scale. it is the competition of Capitalism that has ruined much of our industry , China has billions of people it can exploit but it needs the rest of the world to buy its goods . as it gets richer as a nation the people will put pressure on the elite to pay them better wages etc and then confrontation will begin , it is already happening we just dont hear about.

[borders]

[]a simple question to you , as a defender of the Capitalist system ,

Not a defender in the slightest, but someone who's come to realise there is currently no workable alternative.



do you honestly believe it is the best / fairest system on offer to mankind ?

No, see above, and certainly not "fair" either.


do we have the right to draw the conclusion that capitalism has solved the problems of the world ,

No

that it is not neccesary to look for another system ,

Feel free, the world awaits....




and that , therefore, history has finished ?
Ehh? You had to go and spoil it.


such a conclusion Mr Tman , not only flies in the face of logic but also goes against the evidence of our senses.

Yeahbut, whose logic, whose senses and what logic? It's all subjective, after all.

i can live with that reply Mr Tman , i just believe Capitalism has a lot to answer for, seems you may do too.

[Tman]

If you've read any of my posts, you'll see that I've said time and again that in my opinion, Capitalism, for all it's known and inherent faults, is unfortunately the only system which seems to even remotely work. You, and many others, may consider it to be an ananchronism and unfair, but then have you considered the lot of a postie in the old USSR or China? I would hazard a guess that your life and life style is probably (at least) ten times better than thiers, and that's the rub; although many may gripe and grumble about the political systems of the West, Capitalism (in whatever shade or degree we've experienced through the last 60+ years) has brought the average Joe a far better life than his Eastern European (living under Communism) counterparts.
Whether that's due to, or in spite of, union influence is open to debate and depends on your political colours, but at least it shows that the "Trickledown" theory (despite TBT's cynicism) does have an effect.
The old yeahbuts of "but those countries weren't really Communist" and "the whole world needed to be Communist for it to work" don't wash anymore either, as no-one other than some hard-line military dictatorship is going down the Marxist/Leninist route any more. It's a discredited philosophy, and usually only desired by those safe in the knowlege that although they may bang the drum for a communist state, they live happily in a comfy Western Capitalist society and that's unlikely to change any time soon.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Trickle down theory is a old system that has appeared in different forms and names but can be traced back as far as the USA in 1890s.

If it works in this country why has the gap between rich and poor grown in recent years and on that point alone most people on both sides of the political spectrum tend to agree.

Definition/History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"Trickle-down economics" and "trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing tax cuts or other benefits to businesses and rich individuals, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population.[1] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."[2]

Proponents of these policies claim that if the top income earners invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals.[citation needed] This sentiment is captured in John F. Kennedy's argument, "a rising tide floats all boats." Proponents argue economic growth flows down from the top to the bottom, indirectly benefiting those who do not directly benefit from the policy changes. However, others have argued that "trickle-down" policies generally do not work,[3] and that the trickle-down effect might be very slim.[4]

However, I am not alone in my assertion/belief that it does not work:

The New York Times also believes the Trickle Down Theory does not work in practice. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html

Mehrun Etebari - also thinks it does not work. http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

The Chinese have a good way of describing the theory (the people not the government) http://www.biztimes.com/news/2008/12/19 ... eory[quote] I asked five people from different walks of life in China what they thought about the “trickle down” theory of economics. To a person, they thought it was a rationalization thought up by wealthy people as an excuse to ask for lower taxes.[/quote]

"Trickle Down" economics was a "Trojan Horse" - David Alan Stockman a former U.S. politician and businessman, serving as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985).

The truth is that "Trickle-Down" was never intended to help middle income and poor Americans; it was intended to help the wealthy and Corporate America.

http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/w ... e_down.htm

[Tman]

I wouldn't put too much store by Wikipedia entries, but leaving that aside, if the trickledown theory doesn't work, then wouldn't that be an even bigger endorsement for the capitalist system in action?
Never seen a food queue or cars made from papier mache in the UK yet....

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I wouldn't put too much store by Wikipedia entries, but leaving that aside, if the trickledown theory doesn't work, then wouldn't that be an even bigger endorsement for the capitalist system in action?
Never seen a food queue or cars made from papier mache in the UK yet....

Um no the only system that would support the "Trickle Down Theory" is a Capitalist one, due to the fact that a Communist system in theory does not have rich or poor people, apparently they are all meant to be the same, hence nothing to trickle down. The failure of the Trickle Down Theory is seen, by some, as a systematic failure of Capitalism and Market Driven Economy. Not me I hasten to add, I just believe that all the hype in the 80s and 90s about paying big bonuses and £1m plus wages to the top earners has not worked, hence the theory itself has failed in practice.

Perhaps we should have wage control for earners over £500K per annum. (Not under, that didn't work)

[Night Tonic]

Freedom is a myth whatever political ideals you may have but every communist state I know of is oppressed beyond belief. If you really DO want the equivalent of the KGB banging on your door whenever they like, then perhaps giving up the job and taking a slow boat to China may the answer.

[k979aaa]

Freedom is a myth whatever political ideals you may have but every communist state I know of is oppressed beyond belief. If you really DO want the equivalent of the KGB banging on your door whenever they like, then perhaps giving up the job and taking a slow boat to China may the answer.

That's a good quote just ask the Tory mp who was arrested in the house's of parliament or the guy who protested against tony Blair at the labour conference or even the worker's at GCHQ or the miner's of 1985 and all the rest who have been oppressed by our so called democracy!.

[DGP1]

I'm not above paying people a large wage for those with skills but not for these so called 'Captains of Industry' who know nothing about building a business but can only cut costs (normally staff) or buy other businesses to boost the nominal value of their companies.
Neither Leighton nor Crozier have shown anything other than brutal cost cutting without any idea of how to modernise or how to make the business more efficient even though they have had large sums of money to do so (£1.2 billion loan from the Government that has not been touched). Both Leighton and Crozier have made it quite clear that they want an angry workforce because they thrive on confrontation (why else would they resort to court action everytime there is the treat of a strike) and constantly push things on us that have not been thought out and usually end up being worse than before (Pegasus).
They are poor senior managers who think that it's acceptable to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and who think it's better to spend vast amounts of money avoiding or circumventing regulations than spending the money to ensure than all the regulations are met.

[BELIAL]

If you've read any of my posts, you'll see that I've said time and again that in my opinion, Capitalism, for all it's known and inherent faults, is unfortunately the only system which seems to even remotely work. You, and many others, may consider it to be an ananchronism and unfair, but then have you considered the lot of a postie in the old USSR or China? I would hazard a guess that your life and life style is probably (at least) ten times better than thiers, and that's the rub; although many may gripe and grumble about the political systems of the West, Capitalism (in whatever shade or degree we've experienced through the last 60+ years) has brought the average Joe a far better life than his Eastern European (living under Communism) counterparts.
Whether that's due to, or in spite of, union influence is open to debate and depends on your political colours, but at least it shows that the "Trickledown" theory (despite TBT's cynicism) does have an effect.
The old yeahbuts of "but those countries weren't really Communist" and "the whole world needed to be Communist for it to work" don't wash anymore either, as no-one other than some hard-line military dictatorship is going down the Marxist/Leninist route any more. It's a discredited philosophy, and usually only desired by those safe in the knowlege that although they may bang the drum for a communist state, they live happily in a comfy Western Capitalist society and that's unlikely to change any time soon.

That reasoning might be worthy of debate if it had some logical basis,but if you choose to ignore critical facts then you may as well discuss the relative merits of apples as opposed to athletes foot.
Capitalism;industrialization; technological development,and scientific discovery are not mutually dependent . Any accurate comparison of living standards under whatever system of social organization should take into account the major factors that have shaped the development of it's present situation .
Take just one example, time. By ignoring the fact that our "Free market" Western Capitalist "Democracies" began their mass industrial transformation 200 years before Eastern Europe,China and Japan then any attempt at a comparative analysis of the merits of varying political systems and the benefits they deliver , is pure absurdity and errant nonsense.
Try a simple analogy.
Take two apple trees; One planted 10years ago and watered from the blue can : one planted three years ago and watered from the red can.
The one watered from the blue can yields much more fruit, Do you think chucking away the red can will even things up?

Of course it would be quite an interesting exercise to compare current living standards in Russia and China with those of the British working class in 1800 Here's a few talking points;Typhoid ;malnutrition ; child labour ;cholera ;starvation ; infanticide ; truck shops ;workhouses ; gulags(sorry, transportation)

[Tall Guy]

I'm not above paying people a large wage for those with skills but not for these so called 'Captains of Industry' who know nothing about building a business but can only cut costs (normally staff) or buy other businesses to boost the nominal value of their companies.
Neither Leighton nor Crozier have shown anything other than brutal cost cutting without any idea of how to modernise or how to make the business more efficient even though they have had large sums of money to do so (£1.2 billion loan from the Government that has not been touched). Both Leighton and Crozier have made it quite clear that they want an angry workforce because they thrive on confrontation (why else would they resort to court action everytime there is the treat of a strike) and constantly push things on us that have not been thought out and usually end up being worse than before (Pegasus).
They are poor senior managers who think that it's acceptable to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and who think it's better to spend vast amounts of money avoiding or circumventing regulations than spending the money to ensure than all the regulations are met.

I really don't think you could count anything that L&C have done as "brutal cost cutting".

Not when the base salaries of the majority of the workforce have gone up so much over the last 10 years.

Not when no-one has left this business on anything other than a voluntary basis.

I think the most you could call it is gentle pruning. <duck for cover>

[DGP1]

I'm not above paying people a large wage for those with skills but not for these so called 'Captains of Industry' who know nothing about building a business but can only cut costs (normally staff) or buy other businesses to boost the nominal value of their companies.
Neither Leighton nor Crozier have shown anything other than brutal cost cutting without any idea of how to modernise or how to make the business more efficient even though they have had large sums of money to do so (£1.2 billion loan from the Government that has not been touched). Both Leighton and Crozier have made it quite clear that they want an angry workforce because they thrive on confrontation (why else would they resort to court action everytime there is the treat of a strike) and constantly push things on us that have not been thought out and usually end up being worse than before (Pegasus).
They are poor senior managers who think that it's acceptable to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and who think it's better to spend vast amounts of money avoiding or circumventing regulations than spending the money to ensure than all the regulations are met.

I really don't think you could count anything that L&C have done as "brutal cost cutting".

Not when the base salaries of the majority of the workforce have gone up so much over the last 10 years.

Not when no-one has left this business on anything other than a voluntary basis.

I think the most you could call it is gentle pruning. <duck for cover>

Gentle pruning I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion we've lost 6 full-timers have got 4 20 hour part-timers to replace them but we have still the same amount of duties and still the same amount of hours needed to cover them, it's no wonder that we're so much overbudget but on the up side, we have an extra manager to help cover the walks

And I suppose it depends on what you call 'voluntary basis', but I'm sure the people who've been sacked over trivial matters (filling in HYS forms) would disagree also those who've been forced into retirement because of injuries received at work.

[axeman]

Why is is the ones that go are dedicated workers who've seen it steadily getting worse and just want out before it goes tits up and some of those left are brown nosers , stooges ?

[k979aaa]

Gentle pruning 50,000 job's gone a bit more gentle pruning 50,000 more only 90'000 more left how many more!. I just hope the 50,000 include's the majority of management as they do fu*k all apart from prun and cut and sow their bad idea's!.

[Tman]

Capitalism;industrialization; technological development,and scientific discovery are not mutually dependent . Any accurate comparison of living standards under whatever system of social organization should take into account the major factors that have shaped the development of it's present situation .
Take just one example, time. By ignoring the fact that our "Free market" Western Capitalist "Democracies" began their mass industrial transformation 200 years before Eastern Europe,China and Japan then any attempt at a comparative analysis of the merits of varying political systems and the benefits they deliver , is pure absurdity and errant nonsens

Waffle and tripe. Whilst not ignoring the fact that Western societies have changed over that two hundred years, it would be hard to make any comparitive assessment as those countries which adopted (or in reality for most, had it imposed ) some form of Communism, have mostly given up on it. Yeah, it really was that good then, eh?
Still, you've given another "reason why Communism didn't work", namely it obviously wasn't allowed to "mature" for two hunderd years.

Try a simple analogy.
Take two apple trees; One planted 10years ago and watered from the blue can : one planted three years ago and watered from the red can.

The one watered from the blue can yields much more fruit, Do you think chucking away the red can will even things up?

Simple, but erroneous, as it was you who introduced the idea that timing rather than concept was important....

Of course it would be quite an interesting exercise to compare current living standards in Russia and China with those of the British working class in 1800 Here's a few talking points;Typhoid ;malnutrition ; child labour ;cholera ;starvation ; infanticide ; truck shops ;workhouses ; gulags(sorry, transportation)[

That's an interesting point; have you considered though that Western cultures largely worked to eradicate/outlaw most of what you list? So by your own admission then Russia (USSR?) and China are two hundred years behind the West?
I guess that's Communism for you, always seeking to turn back time....