Compulsory water metering

[Andy Hall]

From where did you cut and paste that nonsense?

I'd cancel the subscription if I were you.

[:::Jerry::::]

self...

I am, but not with people who's over riding concern is to think of their own interests irrespective of the end results for others. Indeed can you hold a reasonable conversation without thinking about yourself first and foremost, I some how doubt it...

Everything has to be something that you could make money out of if you so chose to do so, profit is more important than anything else, even human life, people who are less fortunate than yourself are not worth being concerned about - that is how you are coming across.

[:::Jerry::::]

self...

But the same could be said about the other extreme, Communism (and anywhere in-between), neither is 'bad' in concept - just that some people will always use 'the system' to promote their own wishes before others. Thus you get corruption etc. in both Capitalism and Communism.

[John Cartmell]

The trickle-down hypothesis. Guaranteed to ensure that the gap between the rich and the poor increases.

NB I know that your theory suggests otherwise but - in practice - it's no more than a thin excuse for the greedy to 'justify' their greed.

[Doctor Drivel]

You are stating the obvious. Corruption can occur in any system. The point about 100% Capitalism, it does not promote progress in the right areas or assist the honest intelligent people, and is an intensely unfair is apportioning the product of a society. It also has a habit of promoting the status quo.

[Andy Hall]

In that respect you are completely incorrect. It was you that suggested that capitalism equates to selfishness - it doesn't.

Moreover, it is incorrect to make the deduction that one person's gain is at the expense of another's loss. The whole point of wealth creation is to make the total pie larger. In order to achieve that, typically there are entrepreneurs with the business skills and the willingness to take a risk.

Quite reasonably and justifiably, they will expect to be rewarded for doing so. Others involved in the enterprise will also benefit from the larger pie because they are stakeholders in it by virtue of being employed, receiving bonuses etc. However, they cannot reasonably expect to receive the same as those who took the risks and had the business skills to make it a success.

It isn't a matter of whether I make money out of something but whether investors in it in general do. In order for that to be achieved, the business must execute correctly and deliver value to its customers. Without that, it fails and the shareholders will lose either a lot, or everything. Therefore it is incumbent upon investors, be they individuals or fund managers, to make sure that the business is doing things properly. The same should apply to state run activities, but it's painfully apparent that it doesn't.

The whole thing is a circular argument. You can start at a different place and say that if a business executes properly and delivers what customers want to buy then it will be successful and make a profit. It will also be possible to incent the participants in it for their hard work.

I didn't say or even imply that. You did.

It may be what you infer from your limited view of the big picture, but it isn't the case.

In order to do any of the things such as concern for others, one has to have something to work from in the first place. That doesn't come from government involvement.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt is is right. The only other one you think of is Lord Hall.

[Andy Hall]

The taxation systems more than achieve that.

That is basically because the market economy most closely matches what naturally works. Failure always results from social and economic engineering in the end and there is always a return to market forces.

Even the idiot running the government has figured that one out.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, they don't, hence the poverty in Capitalist countries. LVT goes some way to spreading the proceed fairly.

No excuses please. It promotes the status quo.

[:::Jerry::::]

forces.

No it does not, or at least it's far to simplistic, no one would claim that the business models used by (for example) Cadbury's or Whitworth was a failure, markets eventually change, and that is what forced their business models to change as well - but they had both been very successful in social and economic engineering.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, your powers of observation are poor. Look around you.

[Gully Foyle]

Yes, that's what they (the water company) told us too. Anyone like to quote something other than a water company flyer that backs this up in law?

I didn't believe them any more than I believed the BG "engineer" (i.e. salesman) when he told us our boiler was unsafe and would have to be replaced (this was seven years ago and the boiler is still going strong and perfectly safe).

[dennis]

That model would be capitalism, of course. What happened there is that they realised that if you need a skilled labour force then it was best if you looked after your workers. Then they would do as you asked and would think twice about leaving.

As for shareholders, I wonder who you think they are? They are ordinary people who hold a few shares either directly or as a part of their pension funds. Not very many are millionaires who own huge companies these days.

[:::Jerry::::]

Who said it wasn't. The point is, it was not the immoral capitalism that places profit before peoples lives / health - if it had neither men would have built decent homes / towns for their workers to live in.

I'm not against Capitalism, what I'm against is the immoral Capitalism that you and Andy appear to support and condone.

[Andy Hall]

What would be your solution for wealth creation? Also, can you demonstrate that it would be more effective than capitalism?

[Andy Hall]

What is your definition of "fairly"? Everybody gets the same regardless of their contribution?

[Mike Halmarack]

No one gets out of here alive. Not even capitalists. One exit where you won't get trampled in the rush though.:-)

[Andy Hall]

Do you really imagine that these guys provided homes for their workforce out of generosity? All of the stuff that he provided such as housing, healthcare and so on is all very well and good but it amounts to a lock-in for the employees. It might have been reasonable in an era when people expected and were expected to stay in one company for their entire working lives, but that's a bygone age.

The way to incent people is to pay them well and pay them bonuses for over-achievement. They should have the freedom to choose how they spend their money, not have even a benevolent employer organise their lives for them - that's just another form of nannyism that simply isn't necessary.

I think that you are very confused. At no point did I say that I condone anything that is immoral or that puts profit before people's lives. That was something that you chose to assume.

It is actually very bad business practice to do something like that because you are going to get found out probably sooner rarher than later and then you won't have a business.

However...... this does not mean that it isn't possible to run a business entirely ethically, meet the requirements of the customers and produce a profit.

It's a mistake to assume that the only way for a business to operate where safety is a key element is under state control. It isn't. One can look at airlines to see that demonstrated. It is extremely rare that in the event of an accident that it is because of a profit element. Almost always it is mechanical failure, a design fault or human error on the part of one or two individuals. As the formerly state owned and run airlines have passed out of state control, the safety records have not deteriorated.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, are you answering your own question?

[Andy Hall]

A deep thought.... My granny always used to say that there are no pockets in shrouds....