The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Esk]

It can be a classic example of an old boys club/wagon circling thats for sure. That new CEO of the oil company getting like £29m after a few months cos his company has bought/been bought by Shell or someone? Indefensible.

But not a red cent has been "redirected". He was given a pile of shares when he joined, and they have gone up by a pile on the announcement. So immoral? Yes. A redirection? No.

Could that £29m be better spent? Hell Yeah!

That makes me sick. Not proper wealth creators creating wealth.

Actually mate I do believe it is a redirection of wealth, because the shares he was originally rewarded are a cost to his original shareholders. That cost incrementally is passed onto consumers in order to produce the desired return for the now enlarged capital base.

Additionally then the acquiring shareholders have to account for the additional capital spent to acquire his shares. This in turn is ultimately funded by the customers, the consumers.

So it's a very subtle form of re-direction. I know in my own businesses every cost has to be met by the price my customers pay for the goods or services they receive. Even in a B2B business this is true, because ultimately there's a consumer somewhere who is the ultimate purchaser, and therefore the carrier of all those additional costs.

 

[Toffeelover]

That as maybe, but the kid in India or China that wants to be an engineer or coder isn't bothered by any of that. I mean we see around about 20,000 people graduate in engineering each year. China and India have around 1 million graduating each year. I was reading only today about Dyson wanting to expand but struggling to find the requisite talent in Britain to do so. Where will those jobs go to?

As I said previously, if you're talented, especially in STEM subjects, then you won't ever be short of job offers. So what is it about our society that is stopping kids from poorer backgrounds from giving those subjects a good bash? They're all taught in state schools.

There is a very valid point in there Bruce. There are many young folk who go onto University but to get a degree in what? Bet not many go for engineering of any description, yet a recent study showed that the bulk of very rich folk started as engineers. Or like my grandson doing a degree in Mathematics!

 

[daylightrobber]

And any company that has gone bust has lost people jobs. The shareholders own the business. They have invested their cash in the business. The business that employs people.

Big difference between laying people off to survive as a business or to ensure there's a dividend this year.

 

[Toffeelover]

If a company goes out of business people yes do lose their jobs but shareholders also lose cash as their shares are then worthless. Add to that what about the people or other companies that lose out because their bills are not paid?

 

[The Esk]

It's not a redirection based upon poverty but talent. If you're a talented engineer or mathematician or software engineer for instance, I dare say you'd have your pick of potential employers, regardless of how poor you were. If you don't have that then it's going to be really hard.

This is a self selecting game though Bruce. The poor who become great engineers or designers etc were almost always going to succeed because of their talent, their belief, determination etc. The point about inequality though is not that some talented kids get through and succeed, it's that if you take two equally talented kids from different economic backgrounds then the chances of success are greater for the kid from a better economic position regardless of the fact that they're equally talented.

Hence one of the reasons why the gap between the haves and have nots increase. The wealthier kid starts at an economic advantage by virtue of having some wealth and is more likely to increase that wealth as his life chances are greater as a result of the wealth itself. Therefore you get a double whammy, those with wealth collectively earn more, whilst those without wealth collectively earn less because of reduced opportunity.

That added to the peculiar economic circumstances of the last 7 or 8 years were asset values have been driven up by quantitative easing (as the value of money falls, real assets increase in value) and the real value of incomes (the only source of wealth creation for those without capital) have fallen, plus the opportunity gap created by wealth differences has increased.

 

[Toffeelover]

This is a self selecting game though Bruce. The poor who become great engineers or designers etc were almost always going to succeed because of their talent, their belief, determination etc. The point about inequality though is not that some talented kids get through and succeed, it's that if you take two equally talented kids from different economic backgrounds then the chances of success are greater for the kid from a better economic position regardless of the fact that they're equally talented.

Hence one of the reasons why the gap between the haves and have nots increase. The wealthier kid starts at an economic advantage by virtue of having some wealth and is more likely to increase that wealth as his life chances are greater as a result of the wealth itself. Therefore you get a double whammy, those with wealth collectively earn more, whilst those without wealth collectively earn less because of reduced opportunity.

That added to the peculiar economic circumstances of the last 7 or 8 years were asset values have been driven up by quantitative easing (as the value of money falls, real assets increase in value) and the real value of incomes (the only source of wealth creation for those without capital) have fallen, plus the opportunity gap created by wealth differences has increased.

So all that is equal is inequality!

 

[The Esk]

So all that is equal is inequality!

Hahaha

The fact is though that one of the unintended consequences of "saving" the global economy from the credit crunch is that it created a set of circumstances perfectly tuned to accelerate the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest.

Furthermore the circumstances have led to the poorest not only not keeping pace relatively but losing income in real terms at a time when it has never been easier for the wealthy to make capital gains.

As far as the election is concerned we have one party (Conservatives) who see no reason to attempt to re-adjust this state of affairs versus the Labour Party who under Miliband are seeking to improve matters with wealth redistribution albeit through crude measures like the mansion tax.

 

[Groucho]

I'll be voting Labour (who are still winning this threads' poll), however I'm not impressed by a single politician.

Not one, of any party, although Steve Rotherham seems decent.

 

[Milk]

I'll be voting Labour (who are still winning this threads' poll), however I'm not impressed by a single politician.

Not one, of any party, although Steve Rotherham seems decent.

Dave Nellist has launched a new party

 

[Groucho]

Dave Nellist has launched a new party

Who?

 

[Milk]

Who?

Hard left/Militant/Trotskyist.

Makes Gorgeous George seem like a pussycat

More on his new party:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32254035

 

[chewee]

I'll be voting Labour (who are still winning this threads' poll), however I'm not impressed by a single politician.

Not one, of any party, although Steve Rotherham seems decent.

It's quite sad that the work of local MPs goes under the radar during general elections, even in local media the vast majority of coverage focuses on the party leaders.

My MP is Stephen Twigg (The one from THAT Portillo moment in 97), in comparison to Bob Wareing who was the MP before him he is excellent. I was very cynical of him being parachuted into a safe seat with no links to the area, he appeared to be a career politican who was a party yes man. Happy to say I was wrong, he has a very visible presecence in the constituency and always seems to be pushing along some sort of development/scheme which aims to benefit the area.

Wareing collected his pay cheque, entertained a few wealthy a Russians in London and did sod all for his constituents. He was very much a relic of the previous era before he was booted out due to growing local discontent.

Here's a question: If your local MP was great for the area and you knew he was doing a good job but nationally you opposed his/her party would you vote against them? Basically is the national agenda more important than the local?.

 

[Azzurri]

There are always exceptions Friend. One of my sons has Dyslexia and just did O'levels at school. Got an apprenticeship with Michelin as an electrician that was his start. Now at the age of 50 he is a top IT man setting up cyber security on computers for top banks. Works on a contract basis the value of which for 6 months is between 50k and 100k.

Bloody hell. Is right.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Despite your frequent use of that phrase, that isn't what I think at all. Certainly not the children anyway.

So you blame adults who are poor but not the children... Or at least that is implicit in your post.

You've pointed to studies yourself however that a whole host of reasons affects children and their opportunity to escape poverty - school, finances and parenting, etc.

Surely those adults who you are blaming were also once those children who weren't afforded the opportunity to escape poverty? Does there come a point where you suddenly decide that background and education no longer matter, you should be able to escape poverty?

 

[Clint Planet]

This just in!

Tories bid £8 billion to NHS in exchange for cheap votes!