Manx Radio

[Donald Trumps]

4 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

What's wrong with that?  Why should everything be equal?

Why shouldn't all life have equal rights to exist & to thrive?

That some are considered just to exist to feed the need or greed of others says much about those who hold such views

[woolley]

15 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Similarly, I can’t accept that everything has been designed. Like I said, I can just about believe some other intelligence started it all off, but then the universe has pretty much evolved to be how it is without further interference from this ‘god’. 

If the universal design is chaotic, it's an exquisite chaos that is far beyond our understanding. What if the blueprint was there to play out just as it has right from the start without the need for subsequent intervention? Just like your genome maps out your life.

[Shake me up Judy]

I'm looking for the Manx Radio thread but I seem to have come to the wrong place 

[Donald Trumps]

26 minutes ago, HeliX said:

You'll get no denial about being an idealist out of me!

The Soviet Union and China were/are both too authoritarian to be truly Marxist/Communist. Cuba isn't a far way off, but has been crippled for the last 6 decades by US embargos. I think there are certainly places Marxism can be improved upon to bring it more up-to-date, and more workable. Any system that allows a controlling group at the top isn't really the goal.

That said, I do think a more attainable goal in the short-term at least is something like the Scandinavian "Capitalism with a load of Socialist policies and more public ownership".

 

I mostly don't have objections to your suggestions for improvements to capitalism, though I do think something additionally has to be done about wealth inequality in the workplace. It's a farce that the average CEO salary is over 100x the average worker salary. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be higher than the average worker, but valuing two people's lives (which is what it comes down to, capitalism is buying chunks of your very much not infinite lifespan off you) so far apart is abhorrent.

 

EDIT: Oh and don't get me started on shareholders...

The Death Of Capitalism

https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/the-death-of-capitalism-15289213

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

3 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

Why shouldn't all life have equal rights to exist & to thrive?

That some are considered just to exist to feed the need or greed of others says much about those who hold such views

Does it really though?

The fact is not everyone is equal.  Harsh, but true.  

It's the same with animals.  Helix mentioned about predatory instincts of animals to kill other animals.  If that didn't happen the planet would be over run with animals eventually with no food etc.

What would happen in the oceans if everything in it didn't eat any other living organism?

[Donald Trumps]

What a cnut of a lifeform you must be

[woolley]

30 minutes ago, HeliX said:

You'll get no denial about being an idealist out of me!

The Soviet Union and China were/are both too authoritarian to be truly Marxist/Communist. Cuba isn't a far way off, but has been crippled for the last 6 decades by US embargos. I think there are certainly places Marxism can be improved upon to bring it more up-to-date, and more workable. Any system that allows a controlling group at the top isn't really the goal.

That said, I do think a more attainable goal in the short-term at least is something like the Scandinavian "Capitalism with a load of Socialist policies and more public ownership".

 

I mostly don't have objections to your suggestions for improvements to capitalism, though I do think something additionally has to be done about wealth inequality in the workplace. It's a farce that the average CEO salary is over 100x the average worker salary. I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be higher than the average worker, but valuing two people's lives (which is what it comes down to, capitalism is buying chunks of your very much not infinite lifespan off you) so far apart is abhorrent.

 

EDIT: Oh and don't get me started on shareholders...

Hmmm. Cuba was propped up for the first 30 years of its communist experience by the Soviet Union to pique the USA, and it's a strange advocacy for a communist state to complain that an embargo by the biggest capitalist power on Earth could cripple it. I would concede that Cuba had a charm, although mainly built on nostalgia for its past, and the healthcare was better than in other 3rd world countries. That the Soviet Union and China were/are too authoritarian is self-evident but once again, my point it that this is the ultimate conclusion of taking the communist path. I won't repeat the entire rationale, but the inevitable destination is that controlling group you so wish to avoid. How can it be otherwise? Someone has to be in charge. Don't they?

I agree with some of your beefs about inequality. Without going into the valuing of someone's life, I would be in favour of a maximum multiplier of 30 times the average wage in the company for the pinnacle boardroom appointments. Really because FTSE all share company management are taking the proverbial. They all benchmark each other, and their remuneration committees simply ramp them all up to the highest in the industry and then the cycle starts again and it's very inflationary. That's for appointees on the merry-go-round, a lot of whom are a waste of space anyhow. I would exclude entrepreneurs who actually start businesses and take the initial risk. There has to be a maximum return for them or they will be gone to where they can operate with the sky as the limit.

Shareholders? Well, who are the FTSE all share management taking the mickey out of? Yep, it's the shareholders, and that could be your pension scheme. Shareholders are too remote from companies. They could and should stop a lot of the excesses. We do need shareholders to provide funding, and a lot of them have lost a lot of money recently.

[woolley]

25 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

I'm looking for the Manx Radio thread but I seem to have come to the wrong place 

This is existence night. Last week it was nuclear attack on Spain night. Look at the variety you get on Manx Radio!

[woolley]

28 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Does it really though?

The fact is not everyone is equal.  Harsh, but true.  

It's the same with animals.  Helix mentioned about predatory instincts of animals to kill other animals.  If that didn't happen the planet would be over run with animals eventually with no food etc.

What would happen in the oceans if everything in it didn't eat any other living organism?

This is what I was saying really. It is an exquisite system. A thing of beauty. Nature does not care for sentimentality of the individual. If we were in any doubt about that, we have the coronavirus to disabuse us.

[HeliX]

48 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

What's wrong with that?  Why should everything be equal?

I didn't suggest everything should be equal. But there is a hell of a lot of ground between everything being equal, and the level of wealth inequality we're at now. I suggest it would be for the betterment of society as a whole were we to move into that ground, not further away from it.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

21 minutes ago, Donald Trumps said:

What a cnut of a lifeform you must be

Well i guess you would know given your own disposition 

[HeliX]

13 minutes ago, woolley said:

Hmmm. Cuba was propped up for the first 30 years of its communist experience by the Soviet Union to pique the USA, and it's a strange advocacy for a communist state to complain that an embargo by the biggest capitalist power on Earth could cripple it. I would concede that Cuba had a charm, although mainly built on nostalgia for its past, and the healthcare was better than in other 3rd world countries. That the Soviet Union and China were/are too authoritarian is self-evident but once again, my point it that this is the ultimate conclusion of taking the communist path. I won't repeat the entire rationale, but the inevitable destination is that controlling group you so wish to avoid. How can it be otherwise? Someone has to be in charge. Don't they?

I agree with some of your beefs about inequality. Without going into the valuing of someone's life, I would be in favour of a maximum multiplier of 30 times the average wage in the company for the pinnacle boardroom appointments. Really because FTSE all share company management are taking the proverbial. They all benchmark each other, and their remuneration committees simply ramp them all up to the highest in the industry and then the cycle starts again and it's very inflationary. That's for appointees on the merry-go-round, a lot of whom are a waste of space anyhow. I would exclude entrepreneurs who actually start businesses and take the initial risk. There has to be a maximum return for them or they will be gone to where they can operate with the sky as the limit.

Shareholders? Well, who are the FTSE all share management taking the mickey out of? Yep, it's the shareholders, and that could be your pension scheme. Shareholders are too remote from companies. They could and should stop a lot of the excesses. We do need shareholders to provide funding, and a lot of them have lost a lot of money recently.

It's more that it's remarkable that Cuba hasn't been entirely crippled by a 60 year embargo by the most powerful country in the world. All states rely on trade for part of their income (so far as I'm aware!) and the US' embargo has been incredibly aggressive, with them also strongly "encouraging" other countries not to trade with Cuba under penalty of removing foreign aid etc.

Why is a controlling group the inevitable outcome? "Proper" Communism advocates for State-less society. Reducing wealth inequality and increasing the scope of democracy are good ways to at least lessen the chance of an unpleasant ruling group, even if you can't eliminate it entirely (though I guess we'll have to disagree on whether you can eliminate it entirely!).

30x average salary for board members is higher than I'd want, but at least it's markedly further in the right direction! It's my view that companies should be paying their staff as much as they can afford to while remaining competitive, rather than as little as they can get away with so that they can funnel more money upwards.

You must surely have predicted while writing about shareholders that I would suggest public ownership as an alternative!  Funding is of course important, but I strongly object to private shareholders as it's one of the purest examples of being able to become rich by already being pretty rich, without adding any real value in the way the people generating the value in the business do.

[Gladys]

Communism is great in theory  but the theory doesn't allow for one vital element - human nature and greed. 

[Holte End]

10 minutes ago, HeliX said:

It's more that it's remarkable that Cuba hasn't been entirely crippled by a 60 year embargo by the most powerful country in the world. All states rely on trade for part of their income (so far as I'm aware!) and the US' embargo has been incredibly aggressive, with them also strongly "encouraging" other countries not to trade with Cuba under penalty of removing foreign aid etc.

Could it have had anything to do with the Cuba missile crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

Edited July 2, 2020 by Holte End

[woolley]

11 minutes ago, HeliX said:

You must surely have predicted while writing about shareholders that I would suggest public ownership as an alternative!  Funding is of course important, but I strongly object to private shareholders as it's one of the purest examples of being able to become rich by already being pretty rich, without adding any real value in the way the people generating the value in the business do.

Nooooooo. I would go with public ownership of utilities, but even then with a tight rein on efficiency because we've all seen where it leads. As for the wider economy, think British Leyland, Red Robbo et al. This is the old debate about who actually creates value. If nobody invests and takes risk, there are no jobs. Governments are very bad at business. But hey, thanks for the discussion. You can be a thoughtful poster when you aren't persecuting Stu Peters. Spot on!!