Tech and the rise of communism in the UK

What's Hot
1246

Comments

  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    Fretwired said:

    There has never been unrestrained capitalism. If this country were run that way then the unemployed would be allowed to starve or would be herded into an area of the country where they could be controlled. If you couldn't afford to pay for education or medical care then you wouldn't get it. The US is the closest to this and if you're at the bottom life sucks. Nearly 50 million US citizens live below the poverty line and many of these live in tented shanty towns. It's the survival of the fittest.

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?

    According to the Hong Kong Chinese chap I worked with for 3 years in the early 90s, there was pretty comprehensive capitalism there, with no support for those out of work
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    Which countries in Europe do people think have a socialist economy?

    i.e. where the state, co-operatives or employees own and control the means of production (i.e. factories, farms, etc)

    I suspect people are confusing having a welfare state with socialism

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 6259
    Fretwired said:

    There has never been unrestrained capitalism. If this country were run that way then the unemployed would be allowed to starve or would be herded into an area of the country where they could be controlled. If you couldn't afford to pay for education or medical care then you wouldn't get it. The US is the closest to this and if you're at the bottom life sucks. Nearly 50 million US citizens live below the poverty line and many of these live in tented shanty towns. It's the survival of the fittest.

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?

    According to the Hong Kong Chinese chap I worked with for 3 years in the early 90s, there was pretty comprehensive capitalism there, with no support for those out of work
    bloody hell what do you want, a history lesson?

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 32861
    Which countries in Europe do people think have a socialist economy?

    i.e. where the state, co-operatives or employees own and control the means of production (i.e. factories, farms, etc)

    I suspect people are confusing having a welfare state with socialism
    No, I think you're confusing a totally socialist state with a partially socialist one. There are certainly no totally socialist states in Europe, and I'm not sure there ever have been outside the former USSR - even the Soviet bloc countries did have some private businesses.

    But in the UK after the 1940s, the state did control the means of production - all the major industries were nationalised. In many other European countries that was also true. It's also true that from the 1980s onwards much of that has been dismantled, but there are still large parts of the economies of all European countries which are state-controlled, and in some cases more than half.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • KilgoreKilgore Frets: 1161
    Fretwired said:

    There has never been unrestrained capitalism. If this country were run that way then the unemployed would be allowed to starve or would be herded into an area of the country where they could be controlled. If you couldn't afford to pay for education or medical care then you wouldn't get it. The US is the closest to this and if you're at the bottom life sucks. Nearly 50 million US citizens live below the poverty line and many of these live in tented shanty towns. It's the survival of the fittest.

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?


    Not strictly true. Ancient civilisations in particular persued policies that could broadly be described as 'socialist' or at least characteristic of a welfare state. Particularly the control of prices for cereal crops. The price of grain was subsidised in the Roman Empire. Egypt had similar policies.

    After 25 years of service a Roman legionary was given a final cash payment, effectively a state pension.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16993
    edited April 24

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?


    It wasn't full blown capitalism. Much of the land was still in the hands of a few people and millions still toiled in the fields in an updated version of the feudal system. People worked on the land for peanuts but got a cottage, cheap food and some basic security. Others worked in the factories and had basic rights and poor wages, and poor housing. Although the poor standard of housing resulted in the beginning of social housing. Quality homes built and maintained by local government with fair rents - quite socialist.

    People think the state was small but this was rubbish. Britain had an Empire to run, the largest navy in the world and an army design to keep the peace in far flung places. The state therefore paid for ships to be built, a large civil service and army to manage the Empire and universal education up until the age of 14 - Britain needed people who could read, write and do basic maths.  It was paid for by exploiting resources found throughout the Empire. So it was embryonic capitalism, modern feudal system and a little like the Roman Empire ... not sure what you'd call it. As usual a few got very rich and most got exploited.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16993
    Kilgore said:
    Fretwired said:

    There has never been unrestrained capitalism. If this country were run that way then the unemployed would be allowed to starve or would be herded into an area of the country where they could be controlled. If you couldn't afford to pay for education or medical care then you wouldn't get it. The US is the closest to this and if you're at the bottom life sucks. Nearly 50 million US citizens live below the poverty line and many of these live in tented shanty towns. It's the survival of the fittest.

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?


    Not strictly true. Ancient civilisations in particular persued policies that could broadly be described as 'socialist' or at least characteristic of a welfare state. Particularly the control of prices for cereal crops. The price of grain was subsidised in the Roman Empire. Egypt had similar policies.

    After 25 years of service a Roman legionary was given a final cash payment, effectively a state pension.
    You are right .. legionaries who had 25 years service and fought for Rome could also become Roman citizens (most weren't Romans) and they could still draw a monthly salt ration (most took cash) so there was a basic income.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    Kilgore said:
    Fretwired said:

    There has never been unrestrained capitalism. If this country were run that way then the unemployed would be allowed to starve or would be herded into an area of the country where they could be controlled. If you couldn't afford to pay for education or medical care then you wouldn't get it. The US is the closest to this and if you're at the bottom life sucks. Nearly 50 million US citizens live below the poverty line and many of these live in tented shanty towns. It's the survival of the fittest.

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?


    Not strictly true. Ancient civilisations in particular persued policies that could broadly be described as 'socialist' or at least characteristic of a welfare state. Particularly the control of prices for cereal crops. The price of grain was subsidised in the Roman Empire. Egypt had similar policies.

    After 25 years of service a Roman legionary was given a final cash payment, effectively a state pension.
    I'm not claiming that every society before 1900 was pure capitalism, I'm pointing out that socialism is a recent invention

    I don't think that it's reasonable to claim that absolute monarchies were socialist
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    ICBM said:
    Which countries in Europe do people think have a socialist economy?

    i.e. where the state, co-operatives or employees own and control the means of production (i.e. factories, farms, etc)

    I suspect people are confusing having a welfare state with socialism
    No, I think you're confusing a totally socialist state with a partially socialist one. There are certainly no totally socialist states in Europe, and I'm not sure there ever have been outside the former USSR - even the Soviet bloc countries did have some private businesses.

    But in the UK after the 1940s, the state did control the means of production - all the major industries were nationalised. In many other European countries that was also true. It's also true that from the 1980s onwards much of that has been dismantled, but there are still large parts of the economies of all European countries which are state-controlled, and in some cases more than half.
    I'm talking about now, not 70 years ago, and about a those with a socialist economy, not about those with generous social security systems 

    Which European states now have significant state ownership of "the means of production"?
    I don't mean infrastructure
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    Fretwired said:

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?


    It wasn't full blown capitalism. Much of the land was still in the hands of a few people and millions still toiled in the fields in an updated version of the feudal system. People worked on the land for peanuts but got a cottage, cheap food and some basic security. Others worked in the factories and had basic rights and poor wages, and poor housing. Although the poor standard of housing resulted in the beginning of social housing. Quality homes built and maintained by local government with fair rents - quite socialist.

    People think the state was small but this was rubbish. Britain had an Empire to run, the largest navy in the world and an army design to keep the peace in far flung places. The state therefore paid for ships to be built, a large civil service and army to manage the Empire and universal education up until the age of 14 - Britain needed people who could read, write and do basic maths.  It was paid for by exploiting resources found throughout the Empire. So it was embryonic capitalism, modern feudal system and a little like the Roman Empire ... not sure what you'd call it. As usual a few got very rich and most got exploited.
    If so, what was Marx complaining about in that book he wrote?

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16993
    edited April 24
    Fretwired said:

    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?


    It wasn't full blown capitalism. Much of the land was still in the hands of a few people and millions still toiled in the fields in an updated version of the feudal system. People worked on the land for peanuts but got a cottage, cheap food and some basic security. Others worked in the factories and had basic rights and poor wages, and poor housing. Although the poor standard of housing resulted in the beginning of social housing. Quality homes built and maintained by local government with fair rents - quite socialist.

    People think the state was small but this was rubbish. Britain had an Empire to run, the largest navy in the world and an army design to keep the peace in far flung places. The state therefore paid for ships to be built, a large civil service and army to manage the Empire and universal education up until the age of 14 - Britain needed people who could read, write and do basic maths.  It was paid for by exploiting resources found throughout the Empire. So it was embryonic capitalism, modern feudal system and a little like the Roman Empire ... not sure what you'd call it. As usual a few got very rich and most got exploited.
    If so, what was Marx complaining about in that book he wrote?

    Quite a lot actually. In simple terms people should benefit from their labour. However, in England (his book is based on England's industrial landscape) the capitalist (factory owner/investor/bank) controls the means of production and can grow rich whilst exploiting ordinary people who are not fairly rewarded for the fruits of their labour. In short the land, means of production, ownership of raw materials and routes to market (ships, railways etc) are owned by a small number of wealthy people.

    The UK economy as a whole was more complex. Marx was focused on the economy around industrialisation. He saw that over time this would grow and effectively enslave people. There's a whole philosophical angle as well.

    Read more here:

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism

    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 32861
    ToneControl said:

    I'm talking about now, not 70 years ago, and about a those with a socialist economy, not about those with generous social security systems 

    Which European states now have significant state ownership of "the means of production"?
    I don't mean infrastructure
    France, for one.

    I'm not sure the distinction really matters, anyway - that's a hangover from the language of Marx. Infrastructure and services generate economic activity in the same way as production does, so there is no real difference what you call them.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Phil_aka_PipPhil_aka_Pip Frets: 9005
    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?

    According to the Hong Kong Chinese chap I worked with for 3 years in the early 90s, there was pretty comprehensive capitalism there, with no support for those out of work
    We had feudalism until the Black Death Tour of Europe 1348-9, and probably a bit later after that. By 1600 we were turning capitalist, a process completed (IMO) by the Industrial Revolution. I don't think the change was knife-edge, it happened gradually. So Capitalism has been around for between 400-500 years.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    ICBM said:
    ToneControl said:

    I'm talking about now, not 70 years ago, and about a those with a socialist economy, not about those with generous social security systems 

    Which European states now have significant state ownership of "the means of production"?
    I don't mean infrastructure
    France, for one.

    I'm not sure the distinction really matters, anyway - that's a hangover from the language of Marx. Infrastructure and services generate economic activity in the same way as production does, so there is no real difference what you call them.
    what percentage of production is from state-owned enterprises now?
    and other example countries if you have them, please

    I've found it hard to get data

    this link is interesting though
    https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/lessons-from-the-nationalization-nation-state-owned-enterprises-in-france

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16993
    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?

    According to the Hong Kong Chinese chap I worked with for 3 years in the early 90s, there was pretty comprehensive capitalism there, with no support for those out of work
    We had feudalism until the Black Death Tour of Europe 1348-9, and probably a bit later after that. By 1600 we were turning capitalist, a process completed (IMO) by the Industrial Revolution. I don't think the change was knife-edge, it happened gradually. So Capitalism has been around for between 400-500 years.
    Capitalism didn't really come into play until the Industrial Revolution and even then it took years for it to take hold. In the 1600s commerce was taking off in a big way but production wasn't automated. Skilled men could earn a lot of money and the first recorded strike as we'd know it happened during Henry VIIIs reign when men building Henry's warships demanded more pay. They got it.

    In the industrial revolution wages rose and then stagnated and fell as production rates soared. Many men were replaced in factories by women and children who were paid less and many skilled men lost their jobs to machines and mass production techniques.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 32861
    ToneControl said:

    what percentage of production is from state-owned enterprises now?
    and other example countries if you have them, please

    I've found it hard to get data

    this link is interesting though
    https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/lessons-from-the-nationalization-nation-state-owned-enterprises-in-france
    It certainly is hard to get the data! Almost as if they don't want you to know... I don't have any figures to hand, although it might be possible to find some. It's worth mentioning that France is the top of the public spending/GDP table in Europe too, with 56%.

    That link is very interesting, and (for me) not particularly surprising, although I didn't know the detail.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • quarkyquarky Frets: 2289
    quarky said:

    Unrestrained capitalism has never come close to the horrors of socialism. Never. Socialism always fails, ultimately because it goes against human nature. We are social animals, but we have a hierarchy, we strive to compete, and to attain goals, we like rewards. Socialism can't succeed without addressing that human nature.

    So you describe religion as being something nutters believe in and here's you talking about human nature as if it is a fixed quantifiable absolute. 


    Fair point. I think when you apply even the smallest amount of logic to religion, you would be nuts to believe it, but the desire to have that faith is still something that is inherent human nature. Religion (like stories passed between generations) served a purpose, and still does to some degree, but people should be able to separate fact from fiction! Human nature changes, but just not that fast. The kind of changes that would be required for socialism (as we saw it last century) to work would (I think) take of years, not hundreds, or thousands. Of course there could be socialism 2.0 that has inherent ways to work with human nature as it is, but we just haven't seen it yet.


    ICBM said:
    quarky said:

    OK, I know the "greatest share" was badly worded, but the "vast majority" of the economy doesn't work either That is what I meant though. Socialism is about public ownership of production and assets. Just because 51% of an economy is owned by the Government (it isn't about Government spending, it is about ownership of production and assets), doesn't mean it is suddenly socialist. It is still capitalist in the way it works, but there is just a huge wedge of central planning. 

    The Danish PM said himself,  "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." It is still a very free economy. People can buy what they want, sell what they want, work as what they want, and the market is still driven by economics. A socialist state is none (or few) of those things.
    He may well say so - and I already knew that - but in an economy where over 50% of the GDP is controlled by the government, I really would hope it's planned or they're failing on basic competence...

    Of course it's not wholly socialist - nor even was the UK in the years after the Attlee government nationalised most of the major industries and had a very seriously redistributive tax structure. But it *is* more socialist than capitalist.

    I don't think we disagree that a mix of the two is a good thing, and I'm not even sure that *much* more than half the economy needs to be controlled, but it's very clear that the right balance is at least somewhere around there.
    It isn't. Socialism is public ownership of assets and the means of production. There were still entrepreneurs and economic freedoms. The laws of supply/demand still applied. I still think you are just talking about "nice" or "planned" capitalism. You can still have state owned enterprises competing with privately owned companies. That isn't socialism.

    I agree, a large slice of government planning is healthy, essential even. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Phil_aka_PipPhil_aka_Pip Frets: 9005
    Fretwired said:
    What did we have before 1900?
    I thought it was several thousand years of capitalism?

    According to the Hong Kong Chinese chap I worked with for 3 years in the early 90s, there was pretty comprehensive capitalism there, with no support for those out of work
    We had feudalism until the Black Death Tour of Europe 1348-9, and probably a bit later after that. By 1600 we were turning capitalist, a process completed (IMO) by the Industrial Revolution. I don't think the change was knife-edge, it happened gradually. So Capitalism has been around for between 400-500 years.
    Capitalism didn't really come into play until the Industrial Revolution and even then it took years for it to take hold. In the 1600s commerce was taking off in a big way but production wasn't automated. Skilled men could earn a lot of money and the first recorded strike as we'd know it happened during Henry VIIIs reign when men building Henry's warships demanded more pay. They got it.

    In the industrial revolution wages rose and then stagnated and fell as production rates soared. Many men were replaced in factories by women and children who were paid less and many skilled men lost their jobs to machines and mass production techniques.
    You're right production wasn't automated, and skills could earn decent money, but there was still the concept of a business owner and hence ownership of the means of production. I completely agree the change from feudalism was gradual, I'm just suggesting that the change began earlier than you did.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1504
    edited April 25

    and when the owners became very rich and poverty was rife for the workers working long hours in terrible conditions, mr Marx started formulating his ideas.

    today we have mega rich plus the stripping away of t's and c's i.e. gig economy.

    turning back the clock to the glory days pre war.

     lessons have not been learnt

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235

    and when the owners became very rich and poverty was rife for the workers working long hours in terrible conditions, mr Marx started formulating his ideas.

    today we have mega rich plus the stripping away of t's and c's i.e. gig economy.

    turning back the clock to the glory days pre war.

     lessons have not been learnt


    it's easy to think that based on the "bad news" perspective of the media

    I've heard news stories which are far less gloomy

    poverty halved in last 20 years
    https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-0

    world poverty down from 95% to about 10%, loads of other stuff improved too:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/11/30/why-the-world-is-getting-better-why-hardly-anyone-knows-it/#3db36f178268

    http://www.visualcapitalist.com/6-charts-show-world-improving/




    On the BBC recently, there was a big list of stuff that's improved here in the UK over the last few decades, and concentrating on a few rich people is probably missing the point - how has life changed for most people?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • marantz1300marantz1300 Frets: 1504
    but its changing back
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • KilgoreKilgore Frets: 1161

    and when the owners became very rich and poverty was rife for the workers working long hours in terrible conditions, mr Marx started formulating his ideas.

    today we have mega rich plus the stripping away of t's and c's i.e. gig economy.

    turning back the clock to the glory days pre war.

     lessons have not been learnt


    it's easy to think that based on the "bad news" perspective of the media

    I've heard news stories which are far less gloomy

    poverty halved in last 20 years
    https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/06/economist-explains-0

    world poverty down from 95% to about 10%, loads of other stuff improved too:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2017/11/30/why-the-world-is-getting-better-why-hardly-anyone-knows-it/#3db36f178268

    http://www.visualcapitalist.com/6-charts-show-world-improving/




    On the BBC recently, there was a big list of stuff that's improved here in the UK over the last few decades, and concentrating on a few rich people is probably missing the point - how has life changed for most people?
    I broadly agree with this. You only have to look at the documentaries made in the 50's/60's/70's highlighting poverty, my God it was effing grim!

    The welfare state has played a significant role in poverty reduction, but it is market led technological innovation that has had the most profound effect on the material living conditions of most people.

    The debate regarding income disparity and the rise of a minority uber rich is a valid one, but I believe it is more to do with ideas of social fragmentation and cohesion rather than a simplistic poor vs rich analysis.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11495
    edited April 25
    Kilgore said:
    I broadly agree with this. You only have to look at the documentaries made in the 50's/60's/70's highlighting poverty, my God it was effing grim!

    The welfare state has played a significant role in poverty reduction, but it is market led technological innovation that has had the most profound effect on the material living conditions of most people.

    The debate regarding income disparity and the rise of a minority uber rich is a valid one, but I believe it is more to do with ideas of social fragmentation and cohesion rather than a simplistic poor vs rich analysis.

    Like what? 

    It strikes me that the 'poor' now have a lot of market led technological innovations at their disposal, the obvious being mobile phone and online technology, whilst suffering from failings within the essential areas of living, principally accommodation. Technology is great for streaming us stuff on the bog but it can't make housing issues transform themselves.  
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • KilgoreKilgore Frets: 1161
    Kilgore said:
    I broadly agree with this. You only have to look at the documentaries made in the 50's/60's/70's highlighting poverty, my God it was effing grim!

    The welfare state has played a significant role in poverty reduction, but it is market led technological innovation that has had the most profound effect on the material living conditions of most people.

    The debate regarding income disparity and the rise of a minority uber rich is a valid one, but I believe it is more to do with ideas of social fragmentation and cohesion rather than a simplistic poor vs rich analysis.

    Like what? 

    It strikes me that the 'poor' now have a lot of market led technological innovations at their disposal, the obvious being mobile phone and online technology, whilst suffering from failings within the essential areas of living, principally accommodation. Technology is great for streaming us stuff on the bog but it can't make housing issues transform themselves.  
    Kilgore said:
    I broadly agree with this. You only have to look at the documentaries made in the 50's/60's/70's highlighting poverty, my God it was effing grim!

    The welfare state has played a significant role in poverty reduction, but it is market led technological innovation that has had the most profound effect on the material living conditions of most people.

    The debate regarding income disparity and the rise of a minority uber rich is a valid one, but I believe it is more to do with ideas of social fragmentation and cohesion rather than a simplistic poor vs rich analysis.

    Like what? 

    It strikes me that the 'poor' now have a lot of market led technological innovations at their disposal, the obvious being mobile phone and online technology, whilst suffering from failings within the essential areas of living, principally accommodation. Technology is great for streaming us stuff on the bog but it can't make housing issues transform themselves.  

    I was referring to technological innovation in a much broader sense.

    Agricultural innovations: harvesting technology, selective breeding, etc which has given us relatively cheap and plentiful food. 

    Efficient central heating, double glazing, refridgeration, etc which keep our homes warm, clean and disease free.

    Manufacturing and distribution which provides us with consumer goods from TV's to clothes.

    The welfare state can redistribute the cash, but it's mainly the private sector that provides the goods and services that have transformed the lives of both the well off and the poor on a scale never seen before.

     Yes there are far too many exceptions. The appalling fact that some people need to use foodbanks, can't afford the leccy or still live in shitty housing etc.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11495
    edited April 25
    Kilgore said:
    I was referring to technological innovation in a much broader sense.

    Agricultural innovations: harvesting technology, selective breeding, etc which has given us relatively cheap and plentiful food. 

    Efficient central heating, double glazing, refridgeration, etc which keep our homes warm, clean and disease free.

    Manufacturing and distribution which provides us with consumer goods from TV's to clothes.

    The welfare state can redistribute the cash, but it's mainly the private sector that provides the goods and services that have transformed the lives of both the well off and the poor on a scale never seen before.

     Yes there are far too many exceptions. The appalling fact that some people need to use foodbanks, can't afford the leccy or still live in shitty housing etc.


    I thought you were, just wanted to clarify

    The private sector does supply a lot but it's not all on its lonesome. All of those couriers delivering our online ordered goods don't do so on private roads for instance. The private sector does indeed innovate but it's the public sector which should be providing the bedrock essentials: transport, housing if needed, education. A homeless person can easily acquire a relatively up to date phone for a fairly small sum: gaining a roof over their head is far harder. Society needs that public and private relationship. At present.. it's feeling like the former is having the shit bashed out of it whilst the latter is given tummy rubs*

    *I don't know why a pet-based analogy came into my head but it did.. 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Axe_meisterAxe_meister Frets: 2212
    I'd housing it by far our biggest problem at the moment. Unfortunately there are no quick fixes. Even if there where a crash in house prices would cause all sorts of economic issues with millions of people being in negative equity.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • KilgoreKilgore Frets: 1161
    Kilgore said:
    I was referring to technological innovation in a much broader sense.

    Agricultural innovations: harvesting technology, selective breeding, etc which has given us relatively cheap and plentiful food. 

    Efficient central heating, double glazing, refridgeration, etc which keep our homes warm, clean and disease free.

    Manufacturing and distribution which provides us with consumer goods from TV's to clothes.

    The welfare state can redistribute the cash, but it's mainly the private sector that provides the goods and services that have transformed the lives of both the well off and the poor on a scale never seen before.

     Yes there are far too many exceptions. The appalling fact that some people need to use foodbanks, can't afford the leccy or still live in shitty housing etc.


    I thought you were, just wanted to clarify

    The private sector does supply a lot but it's not all on its lonesome. All of those couriers delivering our online ordered goods don't do so on private roads for instance. The private sector does indeed innovate but it's the public sector which should be providing the bedrock essentials: transport, housing if needed, education. A homeless person can easily acquire a relatively up to date phone for a fairly small sum: gaining a roof over their head is far harder. Society needs that public and private relationship. At present.. it's feeling like the former is having the shit bashed out of it whilst the latter is given tummy rubs*

    *I don't know why a pet-based analogy came into my head but it did.. 
    No argument here. Completely agree. :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 4235
    I'd housing it by far our biggest problem at the moment. Unfortunately there are no quick fixes. Even if there where a crash in house prices would cause all sorts of economic issues with millions of people being in negative equity.

    There is a quick fix, but no one wants it (understandably). It's relocation. The UK has loads of available housing, but not in the south east

    In other eras and other countries, people would relocate, but in the UK, there are more comfortable options
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16993
    I'd housing it by far our biggest problem at the moment. Unfortunately there are no quick fixes. Even if there where a crash in house prices would cause all sorts of economic issues with millions of people being in negative equity.

    There is a quick fix, but no one wants it (understandably). It's relocation. The UK has loads of available housing, but not in the south east

    In other eras and other countries, people would relocate, but in the UK, there are more comfortable options
    Get councils to fix the stock they have. There's a council near where I live with, I jest not, over 700 vacant properties. There are nearly 8,000 empty homes in London, many empty for over 12 months.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ChalkyChalky Frets: 5688
    There are two ways to say this:

    There is a housing shortage, and the solution is to build more houses. 

    That sounds simple. But it is far more accurate to say:

    There are severe housing shortages in places where house buyers/renters WANT to live, and the solution is to build more houses where house owners and the environmentally-conscious DON'T WANT them to be built.

    This second description conveys the complexity of the problem and solution.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.