Biftatheskunk

Im asking from the perspective of a person living in the the UK and the reason i ask is due to the following things.

In real terms wages are now less than they were in 1970.

House prices have risen by around 20 times since 1980 while wages have doubled in the same period.

Gas, Electricity, Public transport, Water, Food, Petrol(Fuel) are all now more expensive than they have ever been.

The banking sector has been allowed to run uncontrolled.

Lots and lots of manufacturing has been outsourced to countries that have cheap slave labour.

The only area that seems to have gotten cheaper in the free market is technology.This is more as a result of new technology giving us faster computers and better Televisions, Phones, Stereos etc then it is as a result of the free market.

Is the free market creating a situation where it is a race to the bottom?

The cost of living in the UK is a lot lot higher than a lot of other countries.

When looking at the countries where wages are low compared to western countries.Are we in a race to the bottom of the wage scale for the masses in our own country.?

Has the free market only been good for the top 1% in our own country?

They are all now far more wealthy after the introduction of the free market.They are all now far more wealthy after this recent global financial crisis.

Our so called trickle down system does not appear to be letting the wealth trickle down fast enough to ensure that people in our own country are not living in poverty.

Thoughts please

I have seen lots of people blaming Socialism for this recent financial crisis that is plaguing half the world at the moment.

Is the banking system that has caused a global financial crisis socialistic or capitalistic? I think we both know they are capitalistic.

All of the countries that have been affected by this recent financial crisis have had huge issues with tax evasion and avoidance.For example it costs the UK £120 billion per year in lost tax.If this tax which is avoided only by the rich had been paid the last 20 years the UK would not have a deficit.

Is tax evasion capitalistic or socialistic? Again i think we both know that tax evasion is capitalistic.

The Single currency of Europe has just highlighted just how difficult it is to set up a single currency across many diverse countries.The economies across these countries is vastly different in scale and all sorts of other ways.It was therefore inevitable that a financial crisis was going to come along to highlight this.

Is the Euro a capitalistic or socialistic? Again i think we know it was capitalistic.

Deregulation of the banking industry back in the late 70's, 80's and early 90's allowed the banks to start selling sub prime lending products.This deregulation aided insane house price rises.In the UK since 1980 house prices have risen by 20 times and wages have only doubled in the same period.Monetarism has been a lot of the cause of this recent crash.

Is this capitalistic or socialistic.Again i think we know it is capitalistic.

Outsourcing of jobs to countries with cheaper labour.This has been happening at a faster and faster pace from western countries to places like China where child labour is rife.This in turn means that millions have been made unemployed in western countries while people are exploited in countries where these companies have gone to.

Is this capitalistic or socialistic?

Privatisation of public services.In the UK back in the 80's lots and lots of public services were privatised.Gas, Electric, Railways, Water etc.These are all now far more expensive now that they need to make a profit.They are now more expensive than they have ever been.

Is this capitalistic or socialistic?

EDF is an example of a public service that is 80% owned by the French government.The company makes £1 billion profit per year which goes in to the pot for French public services.If the French can make a profit from a public service that benefits tax payers why can't other governments?

Is this an example of a socialistic policy that does some good for France as a whole rather than just the capitalistic share holders?Why are more governments not following this model to make all better off instead of just the capitalistic share holders?Lets face it our politicians are supposed to be among the most educated in our society.They should therefore be capable of learning to run things properly for the benefit of all instead of the few.

Those at the top do not work thousands of more hours or thousands of times harder than those at the bottom so why they are paid thousands of times more is beyond me.

Is it socialistic or capitalistic for those in control to be paid thousands of times more than those at the bottom? Again i think we all know it is capitalistic.

Greed has lead to a situation where millions of people die each and every year from starvation.It has also meant that millions more go cold and hungry each year even in rich first world countries.When a small section of society tries to keep it all for themselves it means there is not enough to go around.

Just where will the greed of the capitalistic section of our society stop?

If you truly have to blame Socialism for the worlds ill's you could at least offer some constructive evidence or facts to back up your opinion.

So is there any one that can prove my points as being inaccurate.Is there anyone that can put the blame of this recent financial crisis squarely at the foot of socialism's door with evidence to back it up?

If you think my statement is in any way wrong then watch the linked episode of panorama entitled The Truth About Tax on the BBC I Player

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01hzg7y/Pano...

The program aired on the BBC last week.

Why should the rich be allowed to evade austerity while the rest of us have no choice!

Is the glass half empty or half full?

Why is it you have that view?

Over the last 20 years in the UK we have seen the Labour party move so far to the right that they are now nearly more conservative than the conservatives are.

The Lib Dem's will move in to political obscurity after this term so we will have even less choice than we had in the last election.

There is little or no representation for the average working person now.

There is literally no representation for the sick and disabled

Minorities seem to be under represented

To me it means that all sides of the coin should have proper representation.It should not just be for the rich that can afford to buy politicians through lobbying etc.

Why is it then that all sides of the coin do not have adequate representation in this fake Democracy of ours?

What can be done in the future to ensure that all sides of the coin do have adequate representation?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/08/cut-...

Your thoughts?

I had someone state this to me in a reply i left to a question the other day.

The original question is here for those that want to have a look.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ap...

What are your thoughts on this statement in a political sense?

Is it the job of government to ensure i have an adequate amount of choice to become successful in life or is that just a personal responsibility?

Why don't we see them attempting to get creative when dealing with the greed culture with in our society?

Why do we keep following the same failed policies of the past?

Is it time for democracy to morph in to something new.Is it time to come up with a new political concept.

Have china managed this when merging communism with capitalism.

Is it time for the west to adopt and make it's own version of the same thing but on a democratic basis?

Before i get any scathing comments regarding Communism bear in mind this is just a thought experiment.It is meant to stimulate some rational thought to the concept is all.

With the number of people in the UK being placed in to poverty Should we have a week where every one is forced to live on the same amount that unemployment benefit pays.

With politicians and the rich so out of touch about the poor in this country would it help them to understand what it is like to live as a poor person if they had to spend a week living in perspective a poor person.

Would it help them gain a sense of perspective?

Would it help them realise fairness?

How many of our so called elite could manage on just £65 per week i wonder?

The reason im asking this is because im a disabled person living in the UK.My wife and i have had our income reduced by around £30 per week under this coalitions reforms.I worked for nearly 30 years before my accident and paid national insurance and tax all that time.

Please don't cite any example that affects everyone as it is then a universal cut

In the interests of reaching a balanced conclusion regarding this coalitions cuts i would like to know what cuts have they implemented on the rich.

To me as i receive around £8000 per year in total income including rent and council tax £50,000 would be rich.I have had my income reduced by around £1500 per year.

I would also appreciate it if you could produce some figures on how much the cuts have affected you by if possible please.

We constantly see this government bang on about the so called big society without articulating what is really is.Why should i or people like me have any interest in contributing to society when

1.Im disabled and have been labelled as a cheat,liar and lazy. I worked for the first 30 years of my life with no benefits claims and paid my national insurance.

2.For around 10 of the 30 years i worked for i worked between 80-100 hours a week and have never earned the so called average working wage for the country.

3.We constantly see that those ot the top are paid excessive salaries when those at the bottom live on a pittance.

4.We constantly see that those at the top are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us.Very few MP's were prosecuted over the expenses scandal.If that was a member of the public or a rioter they would have had the book thrown at them.

5.We see that greed is so rife with in our society

6.David Cameron says we have a sick society and boy is he correct.His understanding of broken is different to mine.To me it is full of selfish greedy corrupt people that seem to have no interest in anything but making themselves richer at the expense of others.This to me is the root of people's disenfranchisement

When bearing in mind the above why should i have any interest in contributing to society.Is it wrong of people like me to feel so disenfranchised with the current system that i have absolutely no interest in progressing what this society appears to stand for?

As far as i can see it stands for greed and not a lot else.

Are my thoughts right or wrong in your opinion?

Personally i don't think my political beliefs fall in line with any of the standard political ideologies of today's world.

What and why would yours be?

What would be your top 3 policies?

During the last election campaign we saw David Cameron using this word lots and lots.

I know what his meaning of this word was in a political sense.

What is your meaning for this word?

What more proof do any of you need that the governments are just looking after the interests of the super rich in this country?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/2...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carri...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/nov/29/osborn...

On reflection and in contrast do you think the demands of the occupy london movement are reasonale? If you are unsure what their demands are then check the following news article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/28/occupy-lo...

1.Private landlords? Most of the rented sector is private rented accommodation that compared to social housing costs a fortune.The amount paid for private accommodation seems insanely expensive at times.

2.Private companies? lots of the work force earning around the minimum wage are entitled to a benefit of one kind or another.Whether it is housing benefit,council tax benefit,child benefit etc. Surely if employers were forced to pay adequate wages then surely there would be no need to subsidise the working classes with benefits.

3.Corporations? With the money that people spend that they have been given from benefits.

4.Subsidised companies that are making HUGE profits every year like Virgin.They are given massive subsidies to keep trains operating yet making millions and millions in profit every year. There are a whole host of companies that receive massive benefits at the expense of the tax payer.

5. The poor?

Where does all the money end up? Who does all that money make life better for? Does it allow private landlords,business and corporations to get rich at the expense of the tax payer?

Will we have a communist society when our technology has developed to the point that robots are doing 99% of the work making 99% of the worlds population unemployed?

If not communism under these circumstances then what?

Sensible answers please.I am aware this probably will not happen within our own lifetimes but,with how many people we have seen put out of work due to robots in the past,i do think it is a possibility for the future.

We saw numerous years ago the introduction of private health care insurance in the UK.Some of these companies started advertising on the tv approx 10 years ago and we have seen the lib cons try to back door privates the NHS.

When bearing in mind the above is this a sign we should expect to see the benefits sector privatised in years to come?

Why does the majority of the British public believe that everyone on benefits is either claiming illegally or a scrounger?

I worked for the first 25 years of my working life with no benefit claims.During this period i was forced by bosses to regularly work between 80 and 100 hours a week.I became ill and was signed off around 18 months ago with an incurable illness that means i will never work again.

I am now looked down on and frowned at through no fault of my own.

Why can't the British public see that the majority of people on benefits are claiming legally and are willing to work.As per usual the government and media blow things all out of proportion and give the impression that everyone on benefits is swinging the lead.This then causes all the sheep to follow blindly and not give the situation any rational thought.

With the news this week we have seen announced that 98 out of the top 100 FTSE INDEX companies are using tax havens such as jersey.

Is it wrong that this latest government suggest we are all in this together and then allow these super rich corporations to act in such a manner?

Why do these companies feel it is morally correct to evade paying tax through these loopholes?

What are the reasons these loopholes exist within our tax laws?

Should this present government have closed these loopholes rather than increase vat?

Surely if 98% of the top 100 companies are evading tax this way then the issue is huge and thousands of corporations,companies are doing this.If this is the case why have the government not closed these loopholes?

Should the BBC be forced into the private sector rather than be funded by license payers?

Should we have a choice if we want to receive the BBC channels or not.I have sky tv at home which i choose the channels i want and pay for.Why should it be dictated to me that because i own a television i have to pay the license fee when i don't watch the BBC.

Is it not about time the BBC was forced to advertise in order to secure it's funding.

Why should it be a criminal offence not to have a tv license if i choose not to watch the BBC.

I fully appreciate the tv license in the past was a needed thing.It it what got television off th ground and up and running in the uk.That was however nearly 100 years ago and now channels are aplenty.ITV,C4 and many other channels seem to manage very well with advertising.