Ok, to counter Big Dogs arguments still further, the Sun, the most rightwing paper in Britain blamed the burning of France on lack of opportunities for people of colour, and racism from the Police in ghettoised communities and NOT Islamic terrorists. Its headline attacks the Conservative party leadership candidates for not supporting Blairs 90 day terror laws.
R+B tells of people wanting to deport young Africans born in France, he rightly asks, as they must be asking "Where to?"
I didn't realise till I looked at the Sun's map, quite how widespread this rioting is. I wonder if the balance has tipped in France?
12 comments:
No doubt their lack of jobs is a factor in rioting. People who have jobs don't have time for rioting, they are busy working.
Please note that this is an arguement AGAINST a large welfare state.
It can be argued that a government's policies should be to encourage work and discourage people living on the dole. Therefore: 1) Lower taxes and regulations to make it easier for businesses to operate and create jobs. ANY job, even if its just making fast food. 2) Reduce Welfare benefits to make it less comfortable and less attractive for people to live on the dole.
Yeah, I read Sparkle arguing such things. I live in London. How many people do I see working jobs which are absolutely useless and/or damaging to mankind as a whole?
People spend their lives speaking jargon to each other behind desks all over this city.
Oh, I agree that government created jobs are all too often worthless. There are private sector jobs that are useless or stupid, however, the free market has a countervailing effect on unnecessary/useless jobs.
Meaningful work is an edifying fulfillment of the process of being human. It is far more than the "job" it has been too often reduced to.
Mindnumbing work leads to "going postal", and these riots are a reverse version of that...signifying far more than merely the incidental.
They represent a far-flung cultural failing that will be revisited and expressed in many forms...in many places.
How does the free market have any strategy for getting rid of useless jobs?
How many people in London are stuck in market research phonng people after dinner to ask them if they use a certain product over and over again (paid for by the company)
Free market economics is destroying Rainforests.
The BBC news said that the lunchtime waste of sandwich wrappers per week in London weighs 700 tons.
What answer does free market economics give to that?
Same answer as usual- BURY IT.
"How does the free market have any strategy for getting rid of useless jobs?"
The free market naturally eliminates jobs that don't make money or make a lower profit than competing jobs.
In your example: Telephoning people to ask about product use has been calculated by the company to be a worthwhile economic exercise. The benefits exceed the cost. Some of these surveys are market research and some are disguised sales pitches. Whatever, the case, I personally am as annoyed by the practice as anyone else. I have often have sharp words for those callers who are too familiar or call more than once, and I have never participated.
Are these useless jobs? Maybe. The company who pays for them doesn't believe so. Private companies in the free market have to calculate and recalculate their expenses vs their incomes to maximize their profits. If the company calculates that the practice of telemarketing/telesurveying does not contibute to profits, then the practice would be discontinued. Understand that human beings make mistakes, maybe the effectiveness or worth of these telemarketing/survey techniques is miscalculated. In any case, the free market has stronger incentives to economize.
Secondary points to consider: No one is "stuck" in a job. If you don't like your job, quit and get another. Now I understand that some people have fewer choices. In some cases, a person has few skills or experience, in which case telemarketing is an "entry level" job. You do the job to prove you can show up on time and be a good employee. In those cases, a crappy job is simply a means to getting a better job later. Other people can't get better jobs for one reason or another - I won't go into the many possible reasons. In these cases, they are fortunate to have a job of any kind and a source of income.
I also understand that in some places the job market is limited, there is high unemployment which supresses wages, and the jobs available leave much to be desired. In these conditions people must take jobs that they wouldn't otherwise want. This is another arguement FOR the free market, lower taxes and reduced regulation. High taxes and regulations burdon businesses of all types. Making it harder for them to survive much less thrive, expand and start new ones. This is particularly true of small business owners, the folks with only a handful of employees.
"Free market economics is destroying Rainforests."
The free market doesn't destroy the rainforest any more than any other economic system does. In fact, less. History tells us that socialist/communist economic systems are much much more destructive of the environment than capitalism. One needs only look at what the People's Paradise the former USSR did to its environment. The waste, abuse and outright poisoning of the ecosystem was endemic of that system. Does a non-free market system somehow not use wood or cut down trees? Of course not. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fuedalism, etc etc all use trees. I will go farther: The more leftist/socialist/statist an economic system is, the more destructive that system is to the environment. The more freemarket/capitalist an economic system is, the less destructive.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/060603E.html If you want a cleaner, healthier environment: get rich.
It is in the interests of private owners to see to the care and maintenance of their property. Which is why in the southeast of the USA, forestland owned my private individuals and companies for lumbering are well cared for and maintained. Trees that are cut are replaced, and the local ecosystem is healthy. The Amazon is largely located in Brazil - a far more socialist nation than the US. If you are concerned about preserving the Amazon Rainforest - SELL IT.
Addressing your example: 700 tons of sandwich wrappers. How would a NON-free market system do any better? Sandwich wrappers exist in part for hygenic reasons. What is the alternative? (Illustrating absurdity by being absurd alert....) Stop eating? Use plastic? Feed people out of troughs like cattle? Further, who says the wood to make paper wrappers comes from cutting down rainforest? Here in North America, US and Canadian lumber used to make paper is largely grown in temperate forests specifically for lumbering. I would like to know more before making any connecton between lunchtime paper wrappers and wholesale destruction of rainforests.
Very little wealth is created. Most is borne on the back of one form of exploitation or another.
Usually the repercussion is far enough removed to seem unconnected, but like the artists -who virtually gave away their paintings a century ago, paintings which are sold today for millions- many of the backbone citizenry are crushed by the poisoned paradigm of living far beyond organic need.
calculated by the company to be a worthwhile economic exercise.
NOT to benefit humanity.
The company who pays for them doesn't believe so. Private companies in the free market have to calculate and recalculate their expenses vs their incomes to maximize their profits.
NOT benefit humanity.
In any case, the free market has stronger incentives to economize.
Rather than be of benefit to humanity.
Secondary points to consider: No one is "stuck" in a job. If you don't like your job, quit and get another.
OR try and do something to benefit humanity before you die. Its what Jesus would do.
in some places the job market is limited, there is high unemployment which supresses wages, and the jobs available leave much to be desired. In these conditions people must take jobs that they wouldn't otherwise want.
OR try and do something to benefit humanity before they die.
socialist/communist economic systems are much much more destructive of the environment than capitalism.
Why one or the other?
The more leftist/socialist/statist an economic system is, the more destructive that system is to the environment. The more freemarket/capitalist an economic system is, the less destructive.
Why one or the other if both are proved to be this destructive? Neither work, obviously.
It is in the interests of private owners to see to the care and maintenance of their property.
Privatized waste disposal is even worse. Private companies destroying rainforest and killing those who get in its way.
http://studentnunamazon.co.uk/data/pages/diary.htm
Sandwich wrappers exist in part for hygenic reasons. What is the alternative?
I don’t know. Recycled waxed paper?
I'd like to live in a system where people are employed in jobs which directly benefit humanity. That is how I believe we should live.
I cannot for the life of me understand why "Free market economics" is replacing religion as a belief system.
Its shite, mate. I look around me and I don't believe in it. It drives me to despair.
Seriously.
The problem centers around superficial concern built on perceived need. As opposed to meaningful concern centered on actual need.
Has anybody noticed the misery index continues to climb in spite of our ever increasing accumulation of stuff?
We are far too dazzled by our toys and our conveniences, and are chasing them like lemmings toward oblivion.
you are 6 times as articulated about it as I is.
thats why I like the Republicans who come mu way. By vibing from such opposing points of view, solutions seem to abound.
Nobody is as articulated as you is, Bones.
Post a Comment