h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In fairness...clarity sometimes emerges with argument.

So he should at least let others argue.

Indeed

I myself am quite keen to be told that my ideas are bullshit. Provided I'm told *why* they're bullshit. This is how ideas develop.

>>Profit ( an end in itself in a capitalist world ) if taken beyond excess becomes greed. Surely if 'greed' was taken out of financial and economic thinking we could be moving in the right direction ?<<
I think most people would agree with that!

Monopolies for example, are detrimental to society. To withold goods from sale to increase their price is morally wrong, IMO. Yes, distribution of wealth through taxation is also very important, but there has to be a limit, because I also think it's wrong to take away incentives from a TRUE free market. That's not what I consider the current western system of capitalism represents.
* waves to Ed *

You seem to be arguing that a true free market is moral.

But consider that free markets can't remain entirely free. Their dynamic is that money accumulates in one direction. Left alone, they will theoretically drift towards monopolistic positions.

I agree that monopolies are immoral. But in arguing against them, I suggest that we're arguing *against* market freedom and *for* market regulation.

Thanks - perhaps the target of my recent posts was direct. However they seem to have hit the 'bull' .
Profit is an unfortunate word in that it insinuates wrong doing. Perhaps 'proceeds' would be a better word, 'outcome' may be even better. Think of the 'outcome' of the way that money is handled. Once the outcome meets the requirements then, beyond that, 'profit' once more becomes a dirty word.
Money is the lifeblood of the capitalist financial and economic way of life. Unfortunately the rewards of that way of life are given monetary values and money then feeds upon itself and away we go. Don't worry about the fair distribution of wealth, let's fill our own boots.
We have an outcome but this raises the basic issue.
At the end of the day is all the hassle worth it ?
It has to be worth it to those getting an infinite return. As always it is those who need to be taken care of first.

If it's alternatives to standard capitalism that we're looking for, there's a couple of edited guide entries that might help...

A3136042 - The Political Philosophy of John Rawls

A30777546 - Participatory Economics

And only one of them is written by me....

I'm 81 -

To put a little perspective on the problem of debt induced by excessive mobile phone purchase...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/18/child-poverty-research

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/18/poverty-line-glasgow

In general people in debt. got there because of money.
Those in need should be able to live without money.

I think I get what you mean, Brit, but could you clarify so as to avoid any misunderstandings because that statement is potentially inflammatory!

The SPGB advocate a moneyless society. I'm not entirely convinced, myself...although I'm on blogging terms with a member:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain

I'm unconvinced that the problem can be summed up as 'money'. For reasons I've outlined, it's a useful abstraction of the value of goods and services which allows trading, investment, etc. etc. The problems are more to do with the way money is managed and distributed.





I like the 'Not to be confused with...' at the start of that W***pedia entry.

"**** off! We're the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea!"

I live on credit knowing full well that at the end of the month I can clear my bill.
I use a credit that records what I spend. It has a credit limit. I am billed each month to let me see where my money has gone. I rarely have more than £50 cash in my pocket. Most things that I need can be obtained with that little platic card. That is all those in need require, no cash, just a card that records all their expenditure.

Ok, I'm not sure I do understand.

Everyone who cant afford all their outgoings (bills, rent, food) just needs a credit/debit card with itemised billing?

Ah - but now you're confusing 'cash' and 'money'. You're still spending money, even if it only exists as an electronic record.

Arguably, cash transactions would *reduce* the problems of debt because one could only spend what one had in one's pockets and it would be easier to see what's left.

That's how I budget. I know roughly what I can afford to spend each week (i.e. what's not going out of my account on bills etc.) so I take it out of the bank on the day I get paid and have to make do on that for the week, no matter what... Sometimes it gets bleeding tight!

In reality cash is money so don't cloud the issue. Budget is a cash/money contol word. It is difficult to control something that you haven't got unless you have the backing of the tax payer.
The trouble with most difficult problems is that more often than not they start with a blank sheet. You have to make a start. We have people who are stuggling to live in a money/cash driven society. Those in 'need' either haven't got any or want more. Let them have a credit card with a credit limit. Put 'Visa' form of control into the DHSS and pay for it by getting rid of the cost of issuing Giros. That way there would be a record of what they spend and what they spend it on. Give them money and it just gets blown away. They are still spending but in a controlled way. A start would have been made with little or no damage to the economy.
Just imagine that if in the year 2000, when ID cards were first thought about, a new birth certifate (in plastic) had been introduced which included the record of DNA. Then in just 7 years time everyone under the age of 16 would have had an ID card and DNA record. Instead of that we are still bleating on about human rights etc.etc. But that's another issue.

>>In reality cash is money so don't cloud the issue.

Me?!! It wasn't me that suddenly mentioned cash v plastic. I was trying to clarify, not cloud.

>>Put 'Visa' form of control into the DHSS and pay for it by getting rid of the cost of issuing Giros.

You mean replace the current electronic system of paying benefits into bank and post office accounts by an electronic system based around Visa? I'm not sure how this saves money. I can't have understood you right.

>>That way there would be a record of what they spend and what they spend it on.

So you mean micro-control of the spending of people in receipt of benefits?
1) How much do you imagine all this would cost to monitor and control?
2) Would we, in general, countenance anythhing like this level of government intrusion into peoples' privacy?
3) Would it be even remotely fair?

>>A start would have been made with little or no damage to the economy.

Sorry - I'm not with you again. It seems to me that you are imagining that the current financial crisis is something to do with the profligacy of benefits claimants. I must have misunderstood you again.

So an itemised bill would solve all the problems? What if it just has frivolities on it (name-brand clothing, tobbacco, takeaway food...) - that wouldn't reduce the total bill in the least!

A word in defence of spending on take-away food by people on low incomes: very often it's the only access to food people have. The nearest supermarket may be miles away (and a poor one at that). There may be no access to traditional markets selling fresh fruit and veg...etc. etc.

I think the Jamie Oliver-esque myth of 'If only these people would learn to cook properly' is somewhat pernicious. It ignores social realities.