English Riots: Society Broken By Capitalistic Greed

Riots in England: Britain's Society Broken by Greed

An Essay by Thomas Hüetlin

This essay is one of the finest pieces that I've read in a long time, I'll post the second part in a heartbeat.

It's clear to all fair-minded people that British society has been broken capitalstic greed.

 

Riots in England: Britain's Society Broken by Greed

An Essay by Thomas Hüetlin

 

People are rioting all over the world. They are not all motivated by capitalist instilled consumer greed. They are motivated by injustice and although violence and looting is unacceptable, the people have a right to protest and make their voice heard.

I don't think the riots are based on greed at all. It is easy to jump on that bandwagon and judge now defenceless people, however and plenty are doing that.

We will see in due course. If the people here really are angry, they will protest again despite the Victorian sentences being handed out.

 

Always interested to hear a pov from Germany, but we don't need another lecture from them. Germany should put its own house in order first, then maybe it can tell us where we're going wrong.



And the 3.4 million children who are living below the poverty line are living in relative poverty. That means that the harder the rest of us work, the wider the gap becomes, and we have no choice but to work harder because the cost of living rises ever upwards. Successive governments have allowed, and continue to allow, almost unrestricted right of entry to unskilled migrants ... exacerbating the problem.

The fault doesn't lie with capitalism per se, but with unchecked capitalism, and the British still vote for the same old governments, so nothing will ever change.

 

Life is unjust to some. Is it a government's responsibility to make it just? If so, how? The last government threw money at the problem and the problem got worse and this one looks set to follow suit. Pity the taxpayer.

 

Your poor young people, just like in the USA, REFUSE TO DO MENIAL LABOR. Until they get over the idea that they are "too good" for menial labor, the migrants will get the jobs. It isn't capitalism its an entitlement "I'm too good to sweep floors" mentality of the poor youth.

 

Yes, but without the welfare benefits causing the benefits trap, whereby they're financially better off on benefits, they'd be more inclined to work, and without the immigrants, their labour would be worth more.

 

How do you figure that? Is a native UKer a better worker than the migrant? Is he more productive? Does he show up to work more often on time? What advantages exactly does a native UKer have over a migrant?

The migrant problem isn't just about labor costs, it's about labor productivity as well, the migrants are more productive and complain less. Anyone who says migration should be completely cut off is simply angry that better workers exist in the world than westerners and can easily be imported today.

UK natives are being outworked and out competed. It's just that simple. Just like in America. All of us, Westerners, Asians, Africans and South Americans are now in a giant labor pool competing for limited jobs. You have to be a world class worker now a days.

 

No, a native is potentially no better a worker than an immigrant. A native needs to work or do without the benefits of a worker's lifestyle, and the benefits system should ensure that happens.

Not so. I'm not happy about natives being allowed to sit back and accept benefit payments; some adults fully expect to spend a lifetime never working. I have no grudge against immigrants, but I am contemptuous of the politicians who have allowed the benefits dependency culture to develop.

The benefits trap needs to end, then we should invite immigrants to fill the labour shortages on a work permit system. We're now using mass immigrant labour to drive down wages. It benefits large businesses, but not the tax payers who fund the benefits bill or the unskilled natives who have little incentive to earn their own living. A native should not have to compete with immigrants living in sheds for instance or overcrowded conditions. And the taxpayer should not have to fund benefits payments for EU immigrants children who don't even live in the UK.

We have more than 62 million people here. If the country can't be run with that many people, then something is seriously wrong. We just don't have the infrastructure or the space to cope with predicted net population increases.

 

More like a broken society where everyone demands free money, does not want to contribute and frowns upon the working class.

 

Everyone does not do that. A minority does.

 

The German and many on here have their analysis wrong on this matter. It's not a failure of Capitalism but a failure of the Labour Party's Third Way economic policy.

It's long but a good read.

An Obit for the Third Way.

Also read Vaclav Klaus position on it years before. Rejection of the Third Way in 1990.

 

I haven't got my analysis wrong.

We no longer have the Third Way, but we do have the Big Society. The spin has changed, that's all.

Vaclav Klaus is one of the good guys, but I can't find anything as coherent as that from any British politician on the subject. They barely bothered to oppose Third Way politics at all. No surprise there.

 

That is unfortunately, life. It's impossible to make it fair.

The UK coalition government is very proud that it has committed the UK to giving 0.7% of its GDP to Official Development Assistance (foreign aid) in line with United Nation's target. How much more would you like us to give? What does your country give? And are the starving in Africa the responsibility of the English alone?

If you want to criticise the English, choose a credible issue.

 

Never said you specifically.. but we can explore you opinion later, we might find you are wrong about impacts of unskilled labor immigration vs the lack of educational strengths of the natives. Meaning the Native labor pool has rejected or are unwilling to move or accept the global labor pool dynamics and competition, which still a form of self-entitlement.

 

I think you mean the English vote for the same old governments. No one up here voted the Tories in. And the Labour vote changed also.

I didn't mention the government. But of course it is government responsibility to make it just. How they do that is their job. They are paid to work out how.

The last government had a long term plan to invest in the infrastructure, which was required because of the mess the previous government left. This is different from "throwing money" at it. This area has nothing but new build secondary schools nearing completion. NHS is in a much better state than last time the Cons were in power and almost destroyed it. Unfortunately they were not given time to progress to the next stage of the plan. I still think they would have done a much more effective job than the kneejerk guppies who are in power.

What are you basing this "poor young people refuse to do menial labour" on?

There are no jobs here. The current jobless figure is 2.5 million unemployed. Young people are particularly hard hit.

They can be inclined to work, but public sector redundancies are flooding the market with employable labour and job vacancies have fallen to a level which normally causes high unemployment. However much they want to work and whatever the reasons are, they're not going to find work.

Yes.

We work more hours than any other Eurocountry.

http://www.businessinsider.com/europe-work-hours-2011-6#20-the-united-kingdom-1

No, we're not being outworked and out competed but I'd like to see your evidence on that.

There was a time when the UK was the most productive. It is now the financial capital of Europe and has offshore oil. Some level of socialism keeps incomes relatively high, but we don't mind that. It is unacceptable to us to have anyone starve. It is also unacceptable for people who can't get work through no fault of their own, to be labelled as lazy.

Everyone doesn't demand free money and no one frowns on the working class. Almost all of us are working class or would be if we could get a job.

I disagree. Things are vastly improved on even one century ago.

Save hungry people or save people being killed by scud missiles. You can't do everything. At least they are trying to do something. There is a good case to be made for ceasing all aid to everywhere, because of the economic situation in UK, but we haven't ceased all aid.

It is possible to least improve something, if not everything at once and that is what we are doing as you point out. Good progress can and has been made.

Or people can whine and accept injustice. But there is less injustice in the world today than there use to be.

 

Absolutely, but then there are about 52 million in England and only about 5 million in Scotland. I did discount Scotland, but then you want to be discounted as you're going to separate from England anyway, or so you tell us.

No, you didn't mention the government. But who else is going to make it just? When the government decides how to make the country just without wasting any more of other people's money, it'll have my support for any action it might choose to take, but more of the same just won't do.

The Thatcher/Major governments also increased public spending, but the Blair/Brown governments doubled the public debt in just 12 years [with opposition approval for many years] and reversed none of the previous government's policies and this government is adding even more debt. Governments don't seem to have a clue as to how they might improve the country without "throwing money" at problems as far as I can tell. Services are being cut back, public spending is still rising by giddy amounts and consequently our national debt is still rising.

How many public sector workers have actually been made redundant? A serious question. Do you really think it has been enough to make a difference to the prospects of those disinclined to work? And as we have such high unemployment, why have UK politicians encouraged mass immigration? But most of these immigrants do settle in England so I suppose that's not a worry for you.

The good progress that has been made has been grossly insufficient to justify the rising costs to us and future generations. I don't expect anything to change under the present regime.

The rioters seem to disagree. I disagree too. The cost of living has risen enormously with no correspondingly discernible improvements to services or the poverty gap and that hurts those at the lower end of the social scale even more than it hurts those higher up! But I guess all of this is the fairly classic left/right argument. Neither is *right* or *wrong*. They're just different points of view.

 

No, but your "many on here have their analysis wrong" needed a rebuttal nevertheless.

And the global labour pool? Does that mean a Green Card is no longer required by the US and you're accepting mass immigration too? How many other countries have waived their right to control their own immigration policies? None of that had happened last time I looked outside Europe. Global labour market my foot!

But where are you from and where do you live now?

 

And remember that the English, having no government, have no system for giving foreign aid as a people.

 

I didn't say the English had. The UK does.

 

By implication: 'The UK coalition government is very proud that it has committed the UK to giving 0.7% of its GDP to Official Development Assistance (foreign aid) in line with United Nation's target. How much more would you like us to give? What does your country give? And are the starving in Africa the responsibility of the English alone?

If you want to criticise the English, choose a credible issue.'

 

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here. My original response on this specific issue was to a direct criticism of the English.

The UK aid budget is mainly financed by people living England simply because it has more than 80% of the population of the UK and its most prosperous region. Public spending in some other regions, Wales for example, exceeds tax revenue raised.

Now don't throw your toys out of the pram.

 

As has been demonstrated by an Independent Commission, we are being hugely robbed by the Barnett formula, and if the money were organised as for an English region we'd get a very great deal more. If you talk about 'England' paying for things you are ignoring the present, very unfortunate but actual Union, as you know.

 

Illegal immigration happens in the US. Green card be (*)(*)(*)(*), they still find work. In fact any country who's signed the UN charter and follows the Human rights charter wavies some of the control of it's immigration.

UK also has the issue of it's citizenship policy as there isn't just one status but several.

Now the global labor market is very important. If those from India, China, Japan, and whatever country you want to name has more highly educated workers, they will get the better jobs. Leaving (*)(*)(*)(*) paying jobs to those who are less educated. So it really does come down to the Global Labor pool as Companies (like it or not) are international.

I am from the United States born of Irish parents. My wife and I live State side right now but returning to Europe in a few weeks.

 

Me first, it's the British way. What the country needs is to sweep clean it's 19th century political establishment who more or less inherit power now and get a 21st century democracy set up.