Cameron upping 40% tax rate band from 41k to 50k

Why would the prices increase in the country? You said prices would go up where the factories are, cos of more people etc and demand which makes sense, so the rural villages where there is now less people, by the same logic prices will go down?

The thing with economics is supply and demand will always cause lots of change and variation, and we could speculate all day about what will happen. So to say that the increased business and money in the area will cause inflation the poor can't afford seems to me a very glass half empty view of the situation

 

Because it doesn't work like that, try shopping in the countryside yourself.
Those that do send money to their families will be the biggest drivers of a market if sellers don't have access to a plentyful supply. Prices will still go up.

The wealthiest in the village grow big bellies while the poorest starve ... a bit like here really

 

It's theft in the same sense opening a company, taking funds, and then liquidating it is theft. In essence that is all that is happening.

 

Food prices rise because there is less land for agriculture. This is a problem Nigeria and China are experiencing currently. The production of the factories also gives no benefit to the civilians as it is all exported.

 

If the market was true competition would be everything. Instead the conglomerates try to push the prices they pay down by unatural means. Whether that's corruption of officials or forcing dependency it hardly matters ... it's G.R.E.E.D. and it causes suffering among the poor.

 

:forehead:

Is that really the best you can do? For heavens sake, when you have the temerity to say something with some gravity, at least have a semblance of justification why you say it. That is totally stupid.

 

Typical. When you have nothing sensible to say you resort to your usual jealous/envy bleatings.

I think if you would like to see some examples of corruption amongst government officials, I suggest you do some research on socialist leaning governments, starting with the current French government.

 

Excuse me but envy of who ... banana buyers and Aluminium producers? Nike maybe?

French and Italian officials have been corrupt over centuries so there's nothing new there. However I'm talking more about governments that sell off their countries resources and live like kings using soldiers to suppress the people. But also about companies that demand suppliers to invest in production and then boldly threaten to pull the plug if prices aren't slashed.

Just because you think it fair doesn't mean I have to.

 

Factories take up a minuscule land area as a percentage really. The gains you get in farming improvements would counter that and more

 

It's not stupid because it's precisely what is going on. Having previously worked as a West African analyst I can tell you that the Western justification that their "injection of funds haven't created growth in Africa over the past 100 years is due to corruption" is laughable. Corruption is better at redistributing wealth in these countries than 'trickle down' economics is. The repeated corruption cycle of money going from government to police for protection -> money to families -> Villages etc. (along with all the other possible branches, prostitution and so on) is surprisingly efficient, so the theory simply doesn't hold up. The reality is before it can be put to any use its real value has already diminished so countries get caught in a negative cycle of selling their resources to survive. To believe that the west is doing them a favour by buying up their resources is arrogant at best.

And it goes without saying, the whole free-market philosophy that capitalism is based on prove it is a broken structure because none of the assumptions hold true. No goods are homogenous, no production is perfectly mobile, there is no perfect competition due to natural geographical advantage. Unless you multiply the universe by a zero matrix so it all converges into a single atom it is impossible for this so called 'universal equilibrium' which will hypothetically make everyone better off to ever exist.

 

What farming improvements? The nearby land becomes polluted and infertile. The distant land is still impoverished and sees no improvement in infrastructure.

There may be more hybrid money circling around the economy but the living standards fall.

 

Ah! life in a bubble must be so idyllic

 

You always ignore foreign exchange in your arguments. You aren't left with "American paper notes". The Americans have to buy your currency to buy your exports which strengthens your currency. That cheapens your imports.

 

Can you expand on this? I don't understand what point is being made here.

 

Not in your little bubble. It is just so full of jealousy, envy and bitterness.

 

But your purchasing power is still less than the wests so it's an irrelevance.

 

Handbags, handbags. Seems to me that the only emotions recognised by the right-wing gang on here are envy and jealousy at the bottom and the only emotion recognised by the left-wing gang is one of greed at the top. Maybe you all just enjoy these circuitous arguments but, in reality of course, all of those emotions exist and are not exclusive to any one section of society. And in all sections, many, and probably the majority, aren't particularly driven by those emotions at all.

Capitalism is just a system for organising economic activity and creating wealth. There's nothing special about it that requires a slavish devotion. If it's exploitative of the labour force and the differentials in the wealth of the various sections of society become excessive, it needs modifying and regulating. It doesn't necessarily require wholesale change and not to a collective system which is fundamentally in denial of human aspirations. But, most importantly, we need to be in charge of the system rather than the system being in charge of us.

I like the concept of ethical capitalism. But that is admittedly a loose and wooly term. I'm not sure what it might look like in detail exactly but one thing's for sure. It would require a fundamental re-think in the relative roles played by labour and capital investment in deriving profits (wealth creation) and the divertion of a large chunk of that new wealth away from investors in favour of the labour force.

I'm gonna re-style myself - Voice of Reason Mark II.

 

A country has to start somewhere to improve it's global standing. Of course they won't have the same purchasing power as a Western superpower. By your logic a poor country should simply hoard their own vegtables and make no attempt to import technology because they are getting ripped off.

Ultimately, a country that makes produce that other countries want to buy is going to improve the standard of living for its citizens.

 

Carlos - it feels like if you strip down your posts we come back to your view that economic activity and trade is undesirable purely because it has inflationary impact.

 

The currency markets are too involatile due to the scale of the volumes for the market to adjust to the extent you're suggesting anyway.

 

You're getting living standards confused with growth again:

 

Okay, let's suggest they import capital goods. They produce for the West. The west gets more resources plus the payments for the machinery and is therefore wealthier. They buy more, they produce for the west, repeat. It's a circle of slavery. As they're always behind, they always lose their resources at the end of each cycle. If the cycle repeats continually the only people who see a rise in living standards are the West and everybody else is left with nothing.

It's the underlying reason why the whole mechanism doesn't work. It's a wealth illusion. Artificial numbers get bigger as resources get smaller. The only winner in the end is the team who took all the cake from the party first.

 

The fact is even the most free-market thinkers should agree that the hoarding of wealth in the west is damaging as they're essentially distorting the market through a monopoly. You're arguing that the free-market will correct all issues whilst at the same time defending exactly what will stop it from ever happening.

 

The more they export the stronger their currency becomes. They can import cheaper which boosts the living standards of their own citizens. Trade is a huge positive.

There isn't any middle ground with your theories - you seem to argue that unless you can be a superpower then it is futile to even bother producing. You may as well just eat your raw produce and not attempt any technological advancements and not hope to import any goods that your country doesn't produce. Just because you aren't at the top of the pile with the most purchasing power, that shouldn't be a reason not to attempt to trade with other countries and boost your citizens' living standards.

 

Currencies aren't volatile enough for that to happen. They're pretty much all pegged to the dollar +/- 5% or so per year. But again, exports => inflation due to the growth of money in circulation. Nobody is better off in real terms.

And precisely, I'm arguing that the superpowers make it completely futile and only though protectionism in the short-term and a complete restructuring of the system can absolute poverty ever hope to end. All boosts will otherwise be temporary and artificial. The West/Rest of World situation is no different to a conglomerate with a few local firms supporting them who will eventually get bought up or killed off.

 

You could also have included having to purchase genetically modified seed from the west which has been modified to yield more grain (helpful) but also to be infertile so it has to be purchased on an annual basis (a humanitarian disgrace). Peasant farmers are kept in thrall to the west entirely unnecessarily. If the seed hadn't been modified (deliberately) to be infertile then the peasants could have simply retained their own seedbank.

 

True say.

 

OK, so based on this and some research, I'm ditching Vodafone after 10 years.

What do you recommend as the best alternatives to Amazon and Ebay?

I don't think I've ever been in a Starbucks.

 

Here's a bbc article from a year ago, note the rates are a whisker above the (then) minimum wage so won't be included in your all important stats. Amazon like many others will pay the extra 20p purely for the sake of appearances, it hardly dents their profits anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598

And before Jumbolina jumps in and tells us how blessed are the 20,000 with these jobs I'd ask him to consider the hundreds of thousands of staff elsewhere in the retail sector that Amazon have caused to be redundant as businesses fold under the strain of their competition.

 

Calm down godfather. Get back to your buy to letting empire!

 

Sorry but I'm currently reduced to working for a living ... that's laying bricks and blocks with a partial shoulder dislocation and 24/7 painkillers ... I'm sure you's love to swap places?

 

That old chestnut!

 

Maybe you would like to re-think your comments about Amazons profits. Here is a more recent article.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/amazons-loss-makes-holidays-question-mark-26416008

 

A long time ago my old boss arrived on site one friday explaining in his dulcet county Mayo cant how he lost our wages on a cert that slipped and usurped it's jockey in the final furlong. It doesn't mean we weren't earning him money, only that he was a gambler.

 

So you are ignoring a report on ABC News, which is reported elsewhere, and will be as a result of the official Accounts, on the basis that one of your old bosses has lied, a long time ago.

Ha ha!