Cost of visiting period properties

[Flyfisher]

If you could possibly put aside the politics of envy, what's so bad about a system in which you are able to live a "very comfortable lifestyle"?

If your issue is that we in the 'developed world' are among the few percent of the global population to be fortunate enough to enjoy such a "very comfortable lifestyle", then what's your solution for bringing the other 90-odd% of people up to the same standard without wrecking the planet?

 

[biffvernon]

If you could possibly put aside the politics of envy, what's so bad about a system in which you are able to live a "very comfortable lifestyle"?

If your issue is that we in the 'developed world' are among the few percent of the global population to be fortunate enough to enjoy such a "very comfortable lifestyle", then what's your solution for bringing the other 90-odd% of people up to the same standard without wrecking the planet?

I don't have envy - I have a very comfortable lifestyle.

I do think that the system that allows a tiny number of people to be fabulously wealthy and a vast number of people to be crushingly poor is utterly immoral. I seek to change that.

Of course the remedy is not to have so much economic growth that the poor become as the rich - that would wreck the planet. We need to develop a completely different strategy, one which would take longer to explain than I can be bothered with just here and now. Fleming took about 380000 words on 736 pages to begin to explain it. Go read Lean Logic.

 

[Pford75]

I read the quote and I 'understood' it. The difference is that 'understanding' to you implies agreement with the principles articulated, whereas I understood their point of view and disagreed. This is one of the fundamental problems with those at all extremes (left and right), they assume that if someone disagrees, it must be down to 'misunderstanding' since the logic is undeniable.

FWIW, this is not a rant against 'crusties' - I'd have no sympathy for anyone of any social or political persuasion who behaved in the same way. (how many times have the left accused the Tories of hypocrisy? Or those on the right accusing Labour minister of hypocrisy in sending their children private? By your logic, all they need do is point to the Fleming article and carry on.

I happen to agree that the bankers sold us all down the river and that the Govt hasn't so far imposed sufficiently strict controls over them to prevent a repeat. I also agree that unfettered market forces are not desirable in any society...but on balance I think our country strikes a better balance than many (and believe me I get to see and experience a lot of countries in my job). So, I won't be pigeon holed as a hater of the capitalist system or a super rich investment banker...which is what much of the media around occupy are trying to do. It is possible to both oppose the excesses of the financial system and want reform, without advocating the destruction and demonization of all enterprise.

The equal distribution of wealth you seek has been tried before - communist Russia. That didn't work out too well last time I checked.

 

[biffvernon]

The left and right argument is all rather last century. I don't see myself anywhere on that metric.

I'd be interested to learn where you disagree with Fleming on hypocricy as I thought his logic undeniable. (He was certainly not an extreme left, right or crusty!)

I guess that most people in the UK, myself included, think that our country strikes a better balance than many others. That's why we stay. It does not follow that we are satisfied with the situation and do not wish to see great changes. I rather fancy that the willingness of the protesters in the annotated picture to use the products of the system suggests that wholesale destruction of civilization is not high on the agenda. Just a transition to a much fairer world.

How can any right-thinking person want otherwise?

 

[biffvernon]

The equal distribution of wealth you seek has been tried before - communist Russia. That didn't work out too well last time I checked.

When have I ever sought equal distribution of wealth - or commended Russian communism? Let's leave the strawmen out of it.

 

[robgil]

So if the equal distribution of wealth does not work the only alternative is an unfair distribution of wealth? I dont think the people who have to make the choice to either eat or keep warm would agree.

 

[Pford75]

I do think that the system that allows a tiny number of people to be fabulously wealthy and a vast number of people to be crushingly poor is utterly immoral. I seek to change that.

Maybe here? :roll:

So if the equal distribution of wealth does not work the only alternative is an unfair distribution of wealth? I dont think the people who have to make the choice to either eat or keep warm would agree.

Now there's a straw man :wink:

I simply pointed out that communism didn't work. If it's a comparison of ideologies, then I would argue that far more faced the choice you describe (food or heat) under Communist regimes than in capitalist societies.

You seem to co tinualtry to paint the situation as binary....I believe capitalism is the best option currently available (not a perfect one), and would benefit from some controls and regulation. Those 'occupying' haventset out their proposed alternatives.

 

[biffvernon]

So if the equal distribution of wealth does not work the only alternative is an unfair distribution of wealth?

It's not binary. We don't all have to have exactly the same. But we don't need to support a system where a tiny number of people are thousands of times as wealthy as almost everybody else.

 

[biffvernon]

Those 'occupying' haven't set out their proposed alternatives.

That's a point that needs answering - but it's not easy. The trouble is that it's difficult to set pout the alternative in a few words or a simple slogan. We know that communism is not the alternative - some folk tried that a century ago, not too successfully. You are wrong to say the alternative have not been set out though. I've already set Fleming's Lean Logic before you. This really does set out alternatives - but it's a long read and complex systems are hard to summarise. There is a great deal of work going on building the alternative but it's a broad movement, a work in progress. Don't expect a glib answer.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

So if the equal distribution of wealth does not work the only alternative is an unfair distribution of wealth?

It's not binary. We don't all have to have exactly the same. But we don't need to support a system where a tiny number of people are thousands of times as wealthy as almost everybody else.

The difficulty is separating the "good" wealthy from the "bad" wealthy.

It is not wrong to accumulate lots of wealth (fantastic riches even) - it is a reward for enterprise, endeavour and risk taking. It is a strong motivator. Those who have accumulated great wealth are often wealth creators themselves.

Richard Branson is rich beyond most of our dreams. He started humbly. The accumulation of extreme wealth has been one of his key motivators. Ditto Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, multi-national pharmaceutical companies, international broadcasters, people who make railway tracks, or supply water, or rent out photocopiers, etc etc. They all have rich people running them, who mostly got rich running them. They are all self-evidently forces for good also. Most of them wouldn't be as dynamic, creative, risk-taking or as driven, for non-financial or purely altruistic reasons. That's just human nature and the way markets work - rewards generate risk taking which generates results.

So maybe, it' just the "bad" wealthy we should bash. All those rich bankers. Except many of them are tied up in useful things like insurance, or lending money to businesses to deveop, expand and and employ folk.

Maybe we should just target people like George Soros or casino-style investment bankers. But that is a vanishingly small number of people and overall wealth.

Before we bash all these people - lets not forget that most of the major art or architectural treasures we love (including most of the stately homes we treasure on here for example) were created/collected by people/intitutions who in their time were fantastically wealthy in contrast to the majority of other people. I'm glad they were and created Chatsworth, or Lincoln Cathedral, or the Rockerfeller Institute.

Lets also not forget that some of the most philanthropic acts now (in Africa for example) or historically are made by folk who have accumulated untold riches - and their monies are doing more good than many governments or charities. Would Rockerfeller have achieved all his philanthropic good, had the forces of capitalism not enabled him to become so so so rich when his workers didn't?

We're human. We have a selfish gene. We evolved it for a reason. In a modern context it drives us to achieve at the expense of others. We also have an altruistic gene; harder to identify its evolutionary advantage. We need to use both to improve the lot of all of us.

 

[Feltwell]

On a slightly different tack, but still related to wealth and the cost of visits.....

This story on the BBC today is quite incredible. Margaret Thatcher has claimed £0.5m in expenses from the government over the last 5 years to cover the cost of all her public duties. John Major (who, coincidentally, set the system up) has also claimed £0.5m.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15486792

Thatcher is elderly and has been in poor health for some years now and is very rarely seen in public - how the hell can she justify £100k a year (which I'm presuming will be tax-free as it is "expenses") to cover the cost of "answering letters and attending public events"? £2k a week - that must be a very well-paid secretary who answers the letters to her fan club. And why the hell should we pay for them?

As for Major - he's not exactly in the public spotlight these days, let's be honest he struggled to stay in it when he was PM. Again, £2k a week but this time from a system he set up himself? Hmm, expenses, what does this remind you of? How long before we get a pathetic bleat of "But I was only claiming within the rules"? Not hard when you set the rules.

Let's not just think it's the Tories with their noses in the trough. Tony Blair has been making the most of his claims as well.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Indeed, the year that Blair left office he claimed more than his salary as PM the year before. :evil:

I'm sure there are legitimate costs - and even the cost of sorting papers (public & private) for posterity is reasonable - but £2+k per week? :shock:

 

[Feltwell]

Indeed, the year that Blair left office he claimed more than his salary as PM the year before. :evil:

Much as it pains me to defend Tony - I'm not his biggest fan, and I think I can safely assume that Mr Wiggs isn't either :lol: - I can see that a recently departed (deposed?) PM maybe more in demand for public appearances than one who has long since gone. This still doesn't excuse the level of expenses though.

I'm sure there are legitimate costs - and even the cost of sorting papers (public & private) for posterity is reasonable - but £2+k per week? :shock:

Agreed. And I sincerely hope that Thatcher's attendance at Liam Fox's 50th birthday party, as quoted in that report, is not regarded as a claimable expense!!

As for answering correspondence - I fail to see why that should become an allowable expense once a PM has been out of office for say more than 2 years. Beyond that time it can have little relevance to their time in office and they should be able to choose to ignore the correspondence, redirect it to their political party or reply at their own expense. The thought that I am paying even in a minor way to answer Maggie's fan mail does not sit comfortably with me!

 

[biffvernon]

The difficulty is separating the "good" wealthy from the "bad" wealthy.
...
So maybe, it' just the "bad" wealthy we should bash.
...
I'm glad they were and created Chatsworth, or Lincoln Cathedral, or the Rockerfeller Institute.

It's quite difficult sometimes to separate good people from bad one, which is why we have a complex system of police, courts and prisons. But just because it is difficult, and often gets things wrong, does not mean that we should not bother having a judicial system.

I'm really not into bashing anyone, even the undeservedly wealthy. It's the system that allows gross iniquity that I want to see changed.

Love the Lincoln Cathedral example. It was built by public subscription, or the nearest equivalent that the medieval feudal system could produce. Should we go back to theocratic feudalism just to ensure an new crop of fine buildings?

But hey-ho, we're all in it together: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15487866

Pay for the directors of the UK's top businesses rose 50% over the past year, a pay research company has claimed.

Incomes Data Services (IDS) said this took the average pay for a director of a FTSE 100 company to just short of £2.7m.

The rise, covering salary, benefits and bonuses, was higher than that recorded for the main person running the company, the chief executive.

Their pay rose by 43% over the year, according to the study.

A statement from IDS said that that figure suggested that "executive largesse is evenly spread across the board".

Base salaries rose by just 3.2%, although that was above the median rise recorded by IDS this week for average pay settlements of 2.6% for private sector workers.

The latest consumer price inflation figures showed inflation at 5.2%.

Directors' bonus payments, on average, rose by 23% from £737,000 in 2010 to £906,000 this year.

Don't you just love they system (if you're a footsie 100 director)?

 

[worms]

And if you want to actually read the IDS Directors' Pay Report 2011, you can buy it as a paperback from their website (with FREE DELIVERY) for only £460! :shock:

 

[biffvernon]

These people lack any real clarity of thought as to what it is they are actually protesting about.

 

[Pford75]

I think your cartoon sums up my position rather well. I didn't say they don't know why they are protesting, I said they lack "clarity". The cartoon shows that everyone seems to have a different complaint or perspective - exactly my point. Until there is some clarity or focus, it will be impossible to try and begin to solve. But perhaps many of the protestors are really interested in solving the problem, they just quite like having a purpose?

 

[robgil]

When was the last time protesting changed anything anyway? What might work is an independent voting system but no matter how well organised I doubt our government would act on the results, this being the fair democracy they claim it is.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well the poll tax riots seemed to be fairly successful, but perhaps that was because there were a lot of votes at stake?

On the other hand, 1/4 million people marching through London couldn't save fox-hunting.

And a million or so anti-war protesters didn't stop us going into Iraq.

The anti-nuclear lobby seems to have been fairly successful, though they've had a lot of help from Chernobyl and the end of the cold war. :wink:

Perhaps the lesson is to choose your fight carefully.

But we all get the chance to elect a government every five years at most and our system then gives them carte blanche to run the country as they see fit, knowing that if they really get things wrong they'll be out of office at the next general election - which is a sort of public protest in itself.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Love the Lincoln Cathedral example. It was built by public subscription, or the nearest equivalent that the medieval feudal system could produce. Should we go back to theocratic feudalism just to ensure an new crop of fine buildings?

Ah - that I did not know!

However, the thought of a fantastically wealthy church still tapping the sky-fairy believers for yet more of their tithe is one I think we can both agree sits uncomfortably.

There - if we look hard enough we can find areas of agreement Biff. :wink: