The R Word

[television]

TV, that society thing was tried, it was called the Soviet experiment.

I actually think many of those guys meant well. Unfortunately they completely misjudged the socio-economic beings that we are. There was no unemployment in the Soviet Union. Little crime. You wouldn't have mindless violence in the deprived areas, in fact relatively speaking no deprived areas. No drug problem. In short - utopia!

That society you speak of gave us (Why do you equate society with communism?????????????)

• free health care for all
• Oppuntunity to get your self an education regardless of your ability to pay.
• An understanding that community makes us strong brings out the best in people, mindless greed brings out the lowest common denominator in us.
• Employment law to protect workers.
• etc etc,

How quick you are to use the excesses of the soviet system to denegrade the ideal the we live in a society rather than an economy. You want to be called a "consumer" I want to be called a citizen. promoting the ideal of Society does not mean bringing down the capitialist system, it is about understanding that the pursuit of wealth should be focused on creating a better society for all, and sometimes this means redistributing weath to the most vunerable, rather than the blind persuit of wealth for its own sake.

But something was wrong. Western economies were pulling further and further ahead even moreso when Maggie and Ronnie reversed the socialist engines. The Soviet Union made a call - the society thing would condemn them to falling further and further behind - the capitalist model had won.

This is not a battle between communism and captitalism. A decent society find ways of creating wealth and redistributing it in a just way, it does not mean that people are not allowed to get rich, but that they see that in the end the blind persuit of wealth is utlimitally pointless.

If economic success is one of our goals it has been proven by experience to be best fostered by indivualism which can indeed be characterised by the denigrating terms you ascribe to it and it does bring its inevitable alienation - but the alternative of a collective economy with socialist values simply does not recognise the basic facts of human nature.

You judge the capitialist system according to its lowest common denominator (the pursuit of individualism) I judge humanity according to some higher ideals, the pursuit of justice for all, a fair and caring society where there is shared values of decency. Even on an economic level, rampent greed and individualism will untimaly lead to the distruction of the capitialist system.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

How quick you are to use the excesses of the soviet system to denegrade the ideal the we live in a society rather than an economy. You want to be called a "consumer" I want to be called a citizen.

I never mentioned the excesses of the SU. I stated that they were successful in achieving all the utopian goals you aspire to. It was a reasonably succesful model. But they chose to go West, warts and all, as that was proving the best economic model. The experiment was tried - the human condition meansthat utopian fairness and equality does not mix with economic success. There is a choice though, We could over to the SU system (without the excesses). Not for me.

Anyway citoyen TV perhaps the French Revolution is your preferred model.

 

[television]

- the human condition meansthat utopian fairness and equality does not mix with economic success. There is a choice though,

Ideals like fairness, social justice, equality of oppurtunity (Purple) are not eutopian ideas. the most sucessful economice in the world do a pretty good job achieving both, Norway, Japan, Canada, Sweden etc?????

 

[television]

Anyway citoyen TV perhaps the French Revolution is your preferred model.

Rather be a citizen than a consumer. The ideals of the french revolution is one of the building blocks upon which modern democracy is built on. I know what side of the barracades id sooner be on.

 

[Complainer]

I never mentioned the excesses of the SU. I stated that they were successful in achieving all the utopian goals you aspire to. It was a reasonably successful model. But they chose to go West, warts and all, as that was proving the best economic model. The experiment was tried - the human condition means that utopian fairness and equality does not mix with economic success. There is a choice though, We could over to the SU system (without the excesses). Not for me.

The SU had about as much to do with socialism as Thatcher's Britian. It was a corrupt regime that retained power with the privileged few, and had more similarities to capitalism than socialism. When they were pushed down to the road to the capitalist model by the World Bank/IMF, they transferred power to a new privileged few, the oligarchs by privatising the utilities. These valuable state assets were sold off for a song and created a new breed of billionaire.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with socialism.

 

[Purple]

You think a person who has grown up in generational poverty has the same chance to make "free will" decisions as you term it, than a person coming from a nice middle class home with good parents who teach them the value of education, whos peers with similar embued asperations. Ones ability to act with free will that will help them make good life choices is highly dependant on thier circumstances.

I agree with everything you say here but that only re-enforced the proposition that the root cause of poverty is more a social issue than an economic one.
The solution is to target resources in a way that makes it easier for those in these areas to let on in life. This is why I said that free education for the children of the well off is unjust while the children of the poor are excluded due to the peripheral costs. It would be much better to charge people like me to send my children to third level and use that money to not just pay all of the costs for kids of poor parents but provide them with an income which is greater than what they would get on social welfare while they are there.

I have no problem with money being spent on creating a more equal society; I would happily pay more tax if necessary. I just want the money spent getting people out of the cycle of poverty rather than making them slightly more comfortable staying where they are. Increasing social welfare payments across the board is not the answer; targeted spending that rewards those who work hard to equip themselves and their children for a better future is the answer.

 

[ashambles]

(The USSR) and had more similarities to capitalism than socialism.

Indeed and furthermore black isn't black at all. It's, if anything, more akin to white.

 

[michaelm]

Increasing social welfare payments across the board is not the answer; targeted spending that rewards those who work hard to equip themselves and their children for a better future is the answer.

Agree wholeheartedly. Incentivise people and eliminate welfare traps.

 

[Complainer]

I agree with everything you say here but that only re-enforced the proposition that the root cause of poverty is more a social issue than an economic one.
The solution is to target resources in a way that makes it easier for those in these areas to let on in life. This is why I said that free education for the children of the well off is unjust while the children of the poor are excluded due to the peripheral costs. It would be much better to charge people like me to send my children to third level and use that money to not just pay all of the costs for kids of poor parents but provide them with an income which is greater than what they would get on social welfare while they are there.

I'm reading Ireland's Economic Miracle by Paul Sweeney which has a serious of interviews with some high-profile individuals from all sides of the spectrum. One of the key features mentioned by almost every interviewee is the importance of education in fuelling our growth.

You don't fuel growth by making the fuel more expensive. And if it such a good idea to charge for 3rd level, why stop there? Why not charge for secondary & primary schooling too?

I have no problem with money being spent on creating a more equal society; I would happily pay more tax if necessary. I just want the money spent getting people out of the cycle of poverty rather than making them slightly more comfortable staying where they are. Increasing social welfare payments across the board is not the answer; targeted spending that rewards those who work hard to equip themselves and their children for a better future is the answer.

It's easy to talk about people being 'slightly more comfortable' on welfare. The reality is closer to these situations. If you cut back on welfare, you are likely to deprive those very children who need support most.

 

[Purple]

I'm reading Ireland's Economic Miracle by Paul Sweeney which has a serious of interviews with some high-profile individuals from all sides of the spectrum. One of the key features mentioned by almost every interviewee is the importance of education in fuelling our growth.

Please reread my posts; I have made the case for education and it’s importance in getting out of poverty from the start.

You don't fuel growth by making the fuel more expensive. And if it such a good idea to charge for 3rd level, why stop there? Why not charge for secondary & primary schooling too?

We, as a country have finite resources. Given this do you think it is fair and just that those who don’t really need it get as much help as those who need more?

It's easy to talk about people being 'slightly more comfortable' on welfare. The reality is closer to these situations. If you cut back on welfare, you are likely to deprive those very children who need support most.

The reality for some people on disability is closer to these situations. Are you suggesting that most people in receipt of social welfare payments are disabled?
Where did I suggest cutting back on welfare? I would have no problem with an increase in spending on welfare but I think it should be targeted in such a way as to reward people who keep their children in full time education and when the children are old enough it should directly reward them as well for staying in full time education.

 

[Complainer]

Please reread my posts; I have made the case for education and it’s importance in getting out of poverty from the start.

We, as a country have finite resources. Given this do you think it is fair and just that those who don’t really need it get as much help as those who need more?

Well when you put it like that, it all sounds fine and dandy, but of course this is not what happens in reality. In the real world, the choices available to government are not just bringing back 3rd level fees to fund decent primary education. There are many, many other choices available to goverment to fund decent primary education, such as (just for starters) eliminating many of the tax breaks that subsidise the construction industry, and the private healthcare industry. Or eliminating the costs of expensive PR advisers/agencies/campaigns for Ministers, departments and public bodies.

Bringing back fees for 3rd level education would be a huge step backwards.

 

[shnaek]

There are many, many other choices available to goverment to fund decent primary education, such as (just for starters) eliminating many of the tax breaks that subsidise the construction industry, and the private healthcare industry.

And how will eliminating these 'subsidies' help? I presume you have facts and figures, or could you put 'in my opinion' before this sentence?
Elimination of these 'subsidies' may have taken the heat out of the property market in the past, and prevented our bubble becoming so inflated, but in that case our tax take would have been lower. No harm in my opinion. The tax take should have been lower, so the government wouldn't have lulled itself into a false sense that these housing revenues were going to be coming in forever. With a lower tax take the vested interests and unions wouldn't have had as much family silver to fight over, and the ordinary joe soap wouldn't be looking at so much wealth loss every day of the week as pensions, investments and houses fall in value.

Or eliminating the costs of expensive PR advisers/agencies/campaigns for Ministers, departments and public bodies.

Looks like they are doing something about this, and certainly about time too.

Bringing back fees for 3rd level education would be a huge step backwards.

I would defer to the experts on this. I hear arguments on both sides. I didn't benefit from it, but I thought it was a good idea at the time, as long as the Universities are properly funded. They have a huge part to play in our society and economy, and should be able to compete with the best universities in the world.

 

[Complainer]

And how will eliminating these 'subsidies' help? I presume you have facts and figures, or could you put 'in my opinion' before this sentence?
Elimination of these 'subsidies' may have taken the heat out of the property market in the past, and prevented our bubble becoming so inflated, but in that case our tax take would have been lower. No harm in my opinion. The tax take should have been lower, so the government wouldn't have lulled itself into a false sense that these housing revenues were going to be coming in forever. With a lower tax take the vested interests and unions wouldn't have had as much family silver to fight over, and the ordinary joe soap wouldn't be looking at so much wealth loss every day of the week as pensions, investments and houses fall in value.

If there is a new posting guidelines about having to use 'In my opinion' before every post, do let me know. I'm realistic enough to know that the Govt is not going do anything that would impact the construction industry negatively in the current environment. I agree with you that less bubble and less inflated prices would have been better for all in the long run.