Where did i say that ??

I said that these marches wouldn't achieve anything. And they won't.

You think the government will look at the protests and say "ah ok, people are pissed, let's not make all those cuts after all". ??


I'm afraid it will take more than retards like DVTimes "rioting" to change modern life in the UK. :1orglaugh

No they want others, who didn't cause the debt and will be the ones to pay it back, to take all the pain.

The economics understanding of some is astounding. Ron has just discovered that money isn't real. :1orglaugh

Since people started printing and minting coins it hasn't been real. Look on a Bank Note "I promise to pay the bearer."

Yes Ron it's an illusion and been one for 1,000s of years. But it's what you pay your bills with.

That would really be a disaster and to make it worse maybe they will hit investment banking and those banks will piss off.

Borrowed money is exactly that. Borrowed. Which means it needs to be paid back at some point. Did Gordon think it wouldn't be his job to pay it back. Did he think that by employing 800,000 public service workers would boost the economy. And what's the credentials of those who supported him while he was on his gigantic spending spree?

The banking crisis did no more than expose his stupidity sooner.

Paul markham & Scott McD you guys are boneheads

seriously wake the fuck up

Whole point is to put us into debt - all part of the New World Order illuminati plan.

Problem reaction solution

It's funny how we blame the government for this, when the truth is anyone who bought or sold a house in the past ten years is the only ones who are guilty, myself included. I bought a house and five years later sold it for twice what I had paid for, you just know that's some bullshit right there.

We are told Public sector does not produce anything...

Hospitals cure sick people

Fire Brigade stop fires

Infrastructure for Trade etc...

People understand these things have real value, selling "financial products" on par with casino gampling not investing to produce goods but speculation to make money no matter what the consequences for the workers or consumers. Like buy Cadbury's shutting the UK factory and opening it in Poland, fuck the workers and fuck the chocolate - just the bottom line.

Cuts the rich won't tolerate.

Trident - must have nuclear weapons so that we can sit at the big table

Foriegn Wars - got to protect " our " investments

Tax havens -

------------------

70% of UK land is owned by 1 % of the population (30% by Aristocrats !!!!!)

90% of the pop live on less than 10% of the land.

10% of the population own more than 50% of the wealth.....


If you think the West End looks rough over last night try visiting some poor districts of the UK after the cuts...

Cherry I think I said they don't produce a profit and won't pay back the debt.

You need the infrastructure kept running and running well. What you don't need is it relying on borrowing the private sector can't afford.

Yes loads of jobs came East when they joined the EU. Can you imagine what would happen if the squeeze on the rich was so sever more went?

Or do you propose a Berlin Wall type solution?

Give us the solution. Taxing the rich has been tried and it didn't work, they left even faster. Are you old enough to remember 95% income taxes?

Sure it's sad to see Cadbury go to a foreign owner but that's just business. It has nothing to do with the government and should not ever have. Maybe if our private sector was stronger, then for every British business that gets bought out we could buy one of theirs. Maybe if it wasn't so fucking expensive and such a beaurocratic nightmare to employ people in this country jobs wouldn't be getting exported to Poland.

This march certainly showed us exactly what the left means when they say the are marching for the "alternative"....... anarchist violence and the destruction of the social order and English values by a bunch of pathetic hood wearing Marxists. "Red" Ed Miliband certainly earned his moniker this time. Him and his labor thug allies are a disgrace.

Let the rich leave the sooner the better, all the bankers, the landed gentry, the monarchy, all the blood sucking parisites that got us into this mess in the first place.

Buying and selling toxic sub prime crap is the economics of the mad house.

We can't afford hospitals or fire house but can afford to fire of a 100 misiles at Libya at £1 million a pop.

We are always copying the worse things about the US, why not copy the best and get rid of the feudal class system we have here? That's why europeans went to America in the 1st place...escape the dictatorship of the rich.

Yes and if you want to know what Britain will become after that happens, you can go and live in Zimbabwe.

Paul you are wrong about the public sector not creating any real money it does in a very big way to the private sectors.

The public sector sub contract a lot of its work out to private companys like transportation, building, cleaning, land scaping, private hospitals and other healthcare just to mention a few. They play a very big role in keeping some private companys in business which in turn keep people in jobs. The more cuts the councils have to deal with the less they will sub contract out to the private sector which has a knock on effect on the economy as a whole.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. The public sector is funded by our taxes. You can't make yourself better off by paying yourself with your own money.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of reading skills

I think everybody knows that the public sector is funded by tax payers and that is not the point I was trying to get across. The plain and simple fact is that the public sector creates £££ in the private sector. A lot of private companys depend on the public sector for work so by cutting that off it hurts our econemy even more.

The public sector does not "create £££ in the private sector". Those £££ came from the private sector in the first place. Example - employer's NI contributions. That's a tax on employment in all but name. Gordon Brown increased these several times, and now people wonder why unemployment is going up?

never mind

Yes just business. Like Online porn taking business from offline porn.

Or like buying goods made in places where it's cheaper to produce those goods. Strange how people clothed in goods made in China, Philippines, etc. Are complaining about jobs going over seas.

They keep the infrastructure running so the private sector can make the money to pay for them.

The deciding factor will always be what the private sector can produce in profits to pay for the public sector. If Gordon Brown had only been spending that amount, the UK wouldn't be facing massive debts. Like you and I we borrow money to buy something we can't afford to pay for in one go or as an investment. And we're limited to what we can repay or we go bankrupt. All parties agree there has to be cuts, the only difference is the amount of cuts and the time it will take to repay them.

That decision is often in the hands of the people loaning the money.

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of intelligance.

Gordon Brown didn't fund the public sector out of taxes. He did it by borrowing.

yeah, socialism!

If people lived in a democracy and were given the choice of keeping industry here, of full employment, good schools for everyone (not just the 5% who go to private school and take 60% of the places at Oxford and Cambridge) We would have a different society. Sadly information is controlled by a few corporations who peddle the lie that wealth is created by the rich.

All the real wealth is created by working people who farm, mine, make steel etc...

The public sector make this activity possible by collecting rubbish, curing the sick, putting out fires...

People like ENRON and financial speculators are involved in stealing. The bankers paying themselves bonuses of £10,000,000 for one year is real pornography when so many thousand people live without heating becuse they can't afford it. Now that is violence on a global scale.

"you can't simultaneously fire teachers and tomahawks"

jon stewart

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

bring Margaret Thacher back :P

LOL where do you think private sector revenue comes from?

Public sector consumers. There will be heavy job losses on both sides once Joe "Public Sector" Blogs has lost his fucking job he won't be buying any iPhones.

and shoot her...

and put her on the plynth in Trafalgar Square and we can all take turns in walking up to her and kicking the horrible fucking cunt in the head until she dies, then injecting her with some magic join links until she is revived just enough to take more and more kickings.

Then I will piss on her.

Thatcher makes Paul Markham look nice.

SSSHHHHHHHHHH.......!!!!


(nobody wants to hear that)



.

This thread is a fascinating insight into how people believe wealth and value are created...

Amazing that people think that public sector jobs, which are paid for by taxes and borrowing, actually "create" wealth or value. Look at Greece.

The only way additional wealth or value is created is when a private sector person, or group, creates a new product, or service. Wealth is not a "pie" or a zero sum game, whereby if one person has more, then others have less. Wealth is a river, the flow of which is created by new products and services being provided to a marketplace. If you drive out the producers of new products and services with high taxation and regulation, or with those taxes and regulations, take away the incentive to take the risk of starting a new business, then you will end up drying up that river and your economy will eventually collapse.



I'm sure that you will all howl against this reasoning, but anyway.... Good luck with that whole thing.



.

Actually a river is a very good analogy, water always flows along the path of least resistance, so does money. Try to dam up a river in one place and the water just finds another path, try to tax business profits too much and they just go somewhere else.

Where do you think THEIR money comes from? Out of the magic fucking money tree?

I don't howl against (at least some of) that reasoning at all.

What I was saying is that cutting spending this dramatically is basically going to take billions out of the economy over a 5 year period. That money which would have been spent in the public sector will simply not be borrowed as it would have been.

The fact of the matter is that the UK's finances were not at all bad before the banking crisis. Our national debt was at around 52% of GDP which isn't that high when compared with other countries such as America and Japan. However the bailout (which should not have happened) put us at 147% of GDP.

These cuts are occurring for one reason only and that is to pay for RBS, Lloyds and all of the other failed business' we had to pay for caused by the deregulation you argue for.

No doubt the public sector is too big and manufacturing is non-existent; as are exports. But Britain is now a serviced based economy. It's short-sightedness in the past lost us our best industries to foreign competitors. Just look at Royal Mail for squandered success.

Though I'm not a big believer in capitalism so I think I'll stop here...

So give me the solution. Russia tried one and it didn't work. They had to build a wall around the entire Eastern Block to keep people and businesses in. And it failed miserably.

Strange to hear a person in business talking like a Communist.

Industry kept in the UK. = 10 x the current price for clothing and loads of other goods. Plus overseas companies not coming to the UK to do or invest in businesses.

Plus full employment = Low wages for every one. They had full employment in Czech. They were earning less than $300 a month.

Enron and those who did the same should be in prison and some are or were. But the rich robber barons as you think, are making vast profits that makes the heels turn around and will repay the debts.

The public sector are there to keep the streets clean, cure the sick, teach children, etc. Not repay the massive debts Gordon Brown ran up.

Look at Greece, Portugal, Eire and there might be Spain to add to the list for the consequences of what you propose.

And where do you think public sector revenues come from to buy the iPhones? :1orglaugh

There are only 3 places it can come from, printing money, borrowing and private sector. Even Gordon Brown couldn't get it from anywhere else.

Some of the economics here is laughable and an indication of business prowess.

There is an easy answer to all of the UK's problems - Drop out of the EU now.

Britain seems desperate to export money in anyway it can, be it handouts to other nations, almost unlimited immigration, unwarrented wars and even that crock 'o shite Comic Relief.

The harsh truth is keeping someone employed in a job that doesn't produce a direct profit is expensive. It costs more than putting them onto the dole queue.

You have to pay them, supervise them, manage them, tool them up, locate them in an office, hospital, etc and give them something to do.

There's a strict rule in business. If it costs $100 on the wage bill it needs to return $300 to make it worthwhile. It can vary accordingly to industry.

So if you have council workers building roads the costs are high. As are all other workers. And at present the UK cant afford those costs, it's far better economics to put those people out of work than give them jobs. Yes I know it's tough, but there is no alternative.

Unless Private income can generate the money to pay them they have to go on the dole line. That has other costs, but not as much as having them employed in non direct profit producing jobs.

Simple economics.

But one of the replies shows the level of economic thinking.

Keep borrowing money to pay non essential public sector workers, so they can buy iPads.

A product made in China and owned by an American company.

The reason the UK economy is in the shitter is that these UK workers are buying cheap imported goods. Filling their shopping baskets with goods from China, India, Philippines, driving Japanese cars and keeping workers overseas employed in productive jobs.

If British workers boycotted buying Cadbury's chocolate and all the other products made by the owners. The jobs would of stayed in the UK. They don't, they buy products made overseas all the time.

UK Subsidy to financial services

£47,000,000,000

This is due not to wealth production but to sell products with a AAA rating which had little or no value.

Wealth is made by humans working, and the workers that are most useful make the products we can't live without, food, building materials, clothes, porn, medicines etc...

Capitalism was found to fail at making a lot of products, housing, health service, transport, military, so these at times have to be run by the state.

A lot of products are not needed by society, cinema, art, war, space exploration and it is the choice of society to spend its surplus wealth on these products.

When a capitalist moves a factory to Poland to save money, he makes the UK economy worst but increases his profit, when lots of capitalists do it (making financial sense for themselves) they de industralise the country destroying the capacity of the pop to buy his products.

If Polish wages rise he will be in dire trouble.

no kidding, they are all acting like a bunch of shortsighted uneducated animals...

I said that Paul. I know governments borrow money in order to cover their deficits, it's necessary when you need to fund big projects like building hospitals or schools.

My argument is that the Conservative coalition is cutting huge in amounts in a 5 year term and expecting growth at the end. This frankly will not happen.

Then they'll move to China, because that's what capitalists do. They squeeze the only commodity that they can which is labour. They also lobby governments for subsidies to reduce costs. The resulting profits of the above are paid to shareholders and the board as bonuses.

I don't think capitalism should never have existed, we needed it in order to pass onto the next stage of economic evolution, which is, stateless socialism. Russia has been mentioned as a failure of Communism but they went from a backwards feudal farming country to the superpower of the world in less than 50 years whilst fighting in 2 major wars. It was far from perfect and ran by a complete tyrant but I wouldn't point to it and say "look communism fails", because it wasn't even a true communist state.

"Worker owned means of production" this phrase is always dropped when critiques of communism talked about how it has failed. Show me the Russians that were in charge of their own factories. That's right you can't because Stalin ran them all.

Wait, in the UK, they pay how much in taxes and idiots in the US want to pay more in taxes to fix things? LMAO

When I lived in a communist country I did not pay any tax at all...

Or should I say State Socialist, as it was not a democratic state as envisaged by Marx etc...

But people did not live without rights or a say in there lives...

The institution where I was had meeting called by the Communist Party to discuss how it ran and people said what they thought.

The ruling party was open for all to join, if you wanted a political career. True only one party, but Britain and US are pretty much the same two or three capitalist parties.

It had full employment, housing for all, free education, health service, and culture for all, it had culture, films and theatre from all over the world. A much more open society than the UK or the US. Hell here in the UK we don't even see French culture.

But the the lack of freedom and democracy - and the hostile west, and the revolutionary approach of capitalism to production, won out...

I look to the US for the next attempt at a socialist revolution, I think it may just work there

But I still remember those days as 5 years when I did not worry about money ...

OMG this thread is still going ?? lol

It's 20% in my city so they need to quit their bitching