UK Politics

[al_yrpal]

Well Dave I totally get where you’re coming from, but I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture here. While it’s easy to see property ownership and investments as a sneaky way to exploit people, it’s also worth noting that these systems can create opportunities for many. Not everyone who invests or owns property is out to rob the peasants! In fact, many people are using these avenues to build a better future for themselves and their families.

Let’s not forget that property ownership can be a path to financial stability. When done right, it can help individuals create wealth and provide a sense of security. Sure, there are bad actors in every industry, and we need to hold them accountable, but painting everyone with the same brush doesn’t really help anyone. It’s about finding a balance and encouraging responsible practices in finance and real estate, rather than dismissing the whole system as a scam.

And while the gig economy can be tough, it also offers flexibility that many people appreciate. Not everyone wants a traditional 9-to-5 job, and for some, juggling multiple gigs is a choice that works for them. Instead of seeing it as a “road to serfdom,” maybe we can look at it as a new way of working that adapts to our changing world. Let’s focus on advocating for fair practices and supporting each other in this journey!

Al

[al_yrpal]

I have to respectfully disagree. While it’s a nice thought that everyone deserves a basic standard of living, the reality is a bit more complicated. Not everyone contributes equally to society, and sometimes actions have consequences that can affect one’s access to those essential services.

It’s important to recognize that worth isn’t just inherent; it’s also tied to how we treat others and the choices we make. Some people might take advantage of systems meant to help those in genuine need, which can create a cycle that’s hard to break. It’s a tough balance between compassion and accountability, and I think we need to find a way to encourage personal responsibility while still helping those who truly need it.

At the end of the day, we should strive for a society where everyone has the opportunity to succeed, but that doesn’t mean everyone automatically deserves everything.

Al

[mattheus]

Not everyone who invests or owns property is out to rob the peasants! In fact, many people are using these avenues to build a better future for themselves and their families.

I shall remember that, next time I see a "family-man" millionaire ripping off those less fortunate than himself!

[Nearholmer]

It’s a tough balance between compassion and accountability, and I think we need to find a way to encourage personal responsibility while still helping those who truly need it.

Nearly everything in life seems to adhere to some sort of roughly bell-shaped distribution curve, so if we plot a curve of “individual self-reliance” (there must be a better term for it, but I trust you know what I mean), I’d wager that it would too. A small % feckless people at one end, the vast majority somewhere in the middle, needing a bit of help, but only very rarely, and a few who are utterly self-reliant, manage to help others, and probably reject help even if it’s obvious to all that they need it.

Intelligence definitely follows a bell-curve, and I’d guess that selfishness-to-altruism probably does too.

If that’s all the case, then there’ll always be some “problem children” who challenge the “from each according to ability; to each according to need” equation, because they simply can’t or won’t “pull their weight”. I guess that the best that can be done is to make sure that, from an early age, everyone gets the message that society expects all to do their best in a societal, rather than just an individualistic, sense. Religion used to do the job, based on fear of eternal damnation if you didn’t, and a promise of eternal elevation if you did, but the idea of having a responsibility to society is incredibly muted these days, almost absent in “western” societies, buried deep under i individualistic, consumerist messages. I think that it survives in eastern societies to a greater degree, and has been somewhat institutionalised into the scary-to-western-ears “social credits” system in China.

Some people probably simply don’t “get” the idea of “serving society”, because it doesn’t in any way serve them. If I lived in a crappy, run-down, crime-ridden area, the best job I’d ever had was as a minimum-wage drone in some dire workplace, the doctor’s surgery was an all round disaster zone etc, I might feel the same. I might stick two fingers up at society, because it waved two fingers at me.

[the snail]

...

At the end of the day, we should strive for a society where everyone has the opportunity to succeed, but that doesn’t mean everyone automatically deserves everything.

Al

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "everyone deserves everything", but I do think that anyone who is able should be able to earn a living wage for a week's work. When we have millions of working people relying on benefits to get by, then something is very wrong, and I don't think helping the rich to get ever more rich is the answer.

[Cugel]

...

At the end of the day, we should strive for a society where everyone has the opportunity to succeed, but that doesn’t mean everyone automatically deserves everything.

Al

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "everyone deserves everything", but I do think that anyone who is able should be able to earn a living wage for a week's work. When we have millions of working people relying on benefits to get by, then something is very wrong, and I don't think helping the rich to get ever more rich is the answer.

The usual sop offered by those in reality practicing their zero-sum game of all-for-me-none-for-you is the so called "trickle-down" effect. As every statistic one cares to dig out in their world (and it is rapidly becoming completely their world) the trickling (tending to flooding) is going up, as they extract as much as they can from those actually producing it, leaving those producers with as little as possible.

The pariah underclass of the unemployed and "undeserving poor" is one necessary mechanism of the exploiter-extractor economics mode because it drives down the cost of labour as the supply exceeds the demand.

Those who lived through and benefited (sometimes a great deal) from the post-war settlement with the more distributive economics wrought by Attlee and continued by the one-nation Toriies before the Thatcher Thing came with her wrecking ball ..... many of us are still well-off but a proportion have convinced themselves that this is because they are inherently worthy and able, not because of a kindly socio-economic environment, now gone. Many of them can't see the exploiter-extractors coming for their small wealth too. Yet the so-called middle-class is a shrinking body, with large numbers slipping down the ranks to "underclass member" as their local and personal circumstances are degraded. by one form of exploitation/extraction or another.

And the generalised effects of the trickle-to-flood-upwards economics now practiced everywhere are seen in the generalised effects of broken Britain and/or the rise of disaffected populist mobs everywhere, induced to blaming not the exploiter-extractor causes but each other.

"Enterprise" once meant the creation of genuine goods and services for the benefit of not just the creators but everyone in the society in which they operated, usually in a matrix of other considerations (the inheritance of much more communitarian outlooks) besides profit. Enterprise now means nothing much more than finding some finance-capital trick to put one on the road to being a millionaire by taking the life force and production from everyone else.

[al_yrpal]

I don’t fully agree with your take. The whole “trickle-down” thing may not be perfect, but it’s not all doom and gloom. There are plenty of people who have found opportunities and improved their lives thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation and job creation. It’s not just about extracting wealth; a lot of folks are genuinely trying to create something meaningful and contribute positively to society.

Also, while it’s easy to point fingers and blame the “exploiter-extractors,” it’s important to remember that not everyone in the middle or upper classes is out to get the little guy. Many are working hard to support their families and communities. The narrative that everyone is just out for themselves can overlook the countless examples of people giving back, investing in their neighborhoods, and supporting local initiatives. It’s not all black and white!

Lastly, I think it’s crucial to focus on solutions rather than just highlighting the problems. Yes, there are challenges, but that’s where we can come together to find ways to uplift each other and create a more balanced economy. Let’s celebrate the successes and work on the issues together instead of getting caught up in the blame game!

Al

[roubaixtuesday]

I don’t fully agree with your take. The whole “trickle-down” thing may not be perfect, but it’s not all doom and gloom. There are plenty of people who have found opportunities and improved their lives thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation and job creation. It’s not just about extracting wealth; a lot of folks are genuinely trying to create something meaningful and contribute positively to society.

Also, while it’s easy to point fingers and blame the “exploiter-extractors,” it’s important to remember that not everyone in the middle or upper classes is out to get the little guy. Many are working hard to support their families and communities. The narrative that everyone is just out for themselves can overlook the countless examples of people giving back, investing in their neighborhoods, and supporting local initiatives. It’s not all black and white!

Lastly, I think it’s crucial to focus on solutions rather than just highlighting the problems. Yes, there are challenges, but that’s where we can come together to find ways to uplift each other and create a more balanced economy. Let’s celebrate the successes and work on the issues together instead of getting caught up in the blame game!

Al

Is this an LLM output? Genuine question.

[mattheus]

I don’t fully agree with your take. The whole “trickle-down” thing may not be perfect, but it’s not all doom and gloom. There are plenty of people who have found opportunities and improved their lives thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation and job creation. It’s not just about extracting wealth; a lot of folks are genuinely trying to create something meaningful and contribute positively to society.

Also, while it’s easy to point fingers and blame the “exploiter-extractors,” it’s important to remember that not everyone in the middle or upper classes is out to get the little guy. Many are working hard to support their families and communities. The narrative that everyone is just out for themselves can overlook the countless examples of people giving back, investing in their neighborhoods, and supporting local initiatives. It’s not all black and white!

Lastly, I think it’s crucial to focus on solutions rather than just highlighting the problems. Yes, there are challenges, but that’s where we can come together to find ways to uplift each other and create a more balanced economy. Let’s celebrate the successes and work on the issues together instead of getting caught up in the blame game!

Al

Is this an LLM output? Genuine question.

And a GOOD question, too! What a load of flim-flam!

[al_yrpal]

Had to look it up! Yup, all flim flam.

Al

[roubaixtuesday]

Had to look it up! Yup, all flim flam.

Al

So, is it LLM output?

[cycle tramp]

Lastly, I think it’s crucial to focus on solutions rather than just highlighting the problems. Yes, there are challenges, but that’s where we can come together to find ways to uplift each other and create a more balanced economy. Let’s celebrate the successes and work on the issues together instead of getting caught up in the blame game!

Al

Is this an LLM output? Genuine question.

Actually I rather like the last paragraph.... as an anarchist, i appreciate that in order to raise taxes we actually need an income stream to tax... we can't put a tax on nothing...
If my chickens only had one wing (either left or right) they wouldn't be able to roost in the trees - whether we like it or not, we're outta time and energy.. the only way forward is to agree on those things on which we are able to, and move forward with solutions by ourselves on those points we don't...

Where perhaps I'd like to see more solutions is outside of the economy...

Certainly i would like to see more local government support for allotments (simply because growing a percentage of your own food reduces the affect of inflation), I'd like to see a greater support for local economy trading schemes (which is effectively a banter system) at central government level. I'd also like people to have greater access to the stuff that other people have thrown into the tip.

..it would also be nice to start to move to a society whereby people felt that they didn't need to own a car or laptop in order to be a part of society.

[Nearholmer]

Trickle-down doesn’t work to the general good, and never has, ever.

It’s blindingly obvious why:

- it begins by putting lots of money in the hands of a few people, who then decide how to spend it;

- apart from the odd philanthropist, they always and inevitably spend it on luxuries, so typically big, landed estates and whopper houses, the fanciest art and architecture, fleets of fancy horses and carriages (historical) or cars (modern), massive parties, yachts, racehorses, mistresses, etc.

- even when the concentration of money-flow isn't quite that tight, the well-off spend in the same way, on luxury.

- so, as the money trickles down, it trickles via particular routes, creating employment of particular kinds: domestic service; landscape gardeners; luxury anything makers; or, at the smaller scale, builders of house extensions, spa hotel staff, expensive clothes shop staff, private education, private medical care etc.

- what the money doesn’t trickle down into is schooling for the children of the masses, medical care for the masses, infrastructure projects that benefit all, etc. The only way to get things trickling down in that direction is to drill holes in the bank balances of the better-off, and add some pipe work called “taxation”.

Go look at What Edwardian Britain was really like, away from the lives of the Downton Abbey class …….. money was trickling, but it was barely trickling anywhere useful unless forced to do so by taxation. Interestingly, local rates were one of the most progressively used taxes at the time, because they were levied on wealth (notional rental value of property), and most people weren’t liable to pay any (sfaiu tenants didn't pay rates, only property owners), so things like National Schools came into being on the back of local taxes designed to remove the erstwhile extreme patchiness of philanthropic provision.

A very entertaining read at all levels of you want to get a feel for Edwardian-style trickle-down in action is Tono-Bungay by H G Wells, in which he discusses what he calls the “Bladesover System”, the old arrangement of landed estates and “old money” which he witnessed decaying (he came from the servant class), and being replaced by “new money”. It’s interesting because he was clearly against the old and new versions of the class system (he was a Fabian socialist to some degree), but you can feel the sentiment for the older version, with its dependence upon the local land, rather than money flowing in from distant colonies or industries, and binding obligations between landowners and tenants, coming through.

[roubaixtuesday]

Actually I rather like the last paragraph....

It's not whether you like it, it's whether these are Al's views or LLM output.

You're probably just debating with a bot at this point, but let's see if Al is going to respond.

[Cugel]

I don’t fully agree with your take. The whole “trickle-down” thing may not be perfect, but it’s not all doom and gloom. There are plenty of people who have found opportunities and improved their lives thanks to the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation and job creation. It’s not just about extracting wealth; a lot of folks are genuinely trying to create something meaningful and contribute positively to society.

Also, while it’s easy to point fingers and blame the “exploiter-extractors,” it’s important to remember that not everyone in the middle or upper classes is out to get the little guy. Many are working hard to support their families and communities. The narrative that everyone is just out for themselves can overlook the countless examples of people giving back, investing in their neighborhoods, and supporting local initiatives. It’s not all black and white!

Lastly, I think it’s crucial to focus on solutions rather than just highlighting the problems. Yes, there are challenges, but that’s where we can come together to find ways to uplift each other and create a more balanced economy. Let’s celebrate the successes and work on the issues together instead of getting caught up in the blame game!

Al

Is this an LLM output? Genuine question.

And a GOOD question, too! What a load of flim-flam!

The change in style from usual-pal was very obvious, no?

Is the generation of such flim-flam a forum abuse? Personally I think so, as effectively a human is getting a machine to pose as themselves, espousing stuff that the human regards as flim-flam, not any seriously-meant proposals & conclusions. On the other hand, how to detect it with certainty; and what should be the moderator response?

In this particular instance I feel that Pal is in effect practicing a form of trolling, as are many of his other posts. He wants to provoke for his chuckles, not have anything that could be called a discussion. I believe the moderator disagrees and may even now ban me for raising this possibility, as he has before.