I hate the government

'niceguy'-

I responded that there are jobs, just less. You then decided to have a bit of a rant and prove to me by using the power of mathematics what I already stated. And that was that there are less jobs rather than 'no jobs'. So let me thank you for accepting that fact.

You miss the point spectacularly, either deliberately or unwittingly.

I responded that there are jobs, just less

This is trivially true. When someone says 'There are no fucking jobs', it's called exaggeration. If there were no open jobs, there would be no economy.

The point was that there are estimated to me hundreds of thousands of more people looking for jobs than there are jobs. It's a matter of degree. And regardless of your attempt to dismiss this as unimportant, it is exactly the point. It's always a matter of degree. There is never 0% unemployment either.

So it's nasty and disingenuous for you to say that 'of course there are jobs, there are just fewer'. That's not helpful in the slightest. You could say the same thing whether unemployment is at 5%, 10%, 25% or 50%. Which brings us to the next point:

I don't think Cogito and I have blamed the victim. Where have I done so? There isn't even a victim! OP was talking theoretically since she actually still has her job and like many (myself included) are worried about whether or not we'll still have one over the next year or two.

Yes there is a victim. The victim is the ordinary people who have lost their jobs (ie. been fired or made redundant) because of the financial crisis and the misguided 'austerity measures', either directly because of government cuts, or because the ideological cuts are stifling the economy and cutting off demand. These people - the public - are the victims.

And it is you who blame them by trying to shift responsibility on to them by saying that they should just get on their bike and try harder, or retrain for another career in order to find a job, when the financial crisis is not of their doing.

You should be criticising the financiers and the crony Capitalists who got us into this crisis, not the people who lost their jobs as a result.

DH and I are pensioners we have 2dc's both SN and 3 young adults with SN OK we are not poor but should this government slash DLA and incapacity benefit (we get no HB) we will be very poor. I am very scared that should this happen we may be forced to put them in residntial care and they would not get the standard of care and love they get with us. I hate this government with a vengence.

Ttosca, you are the ultimate frother aren't you?

Never let what I actually said stand in the way of what you'd prefer me to have said eh?

The original statement was (and I quote) ....when there are NO FUCKING JOBS.

I responded that there are jobs, just less. You then decided to have a bit of a rant and prove to me by using the power of mathematics what I already stated. And that was that there are less jobs rather than 'no jobs'. So let me thank you for accepting that fact.

I don't think Cogito and I have blamed the victim. Where have I done so? There isn't even a victim! OP was talking theoretically since she actually still has her job and like many (myself included) are worried about whether or not we'll still have one over the next year or two.

If they fail, then let's kick them out and vote for a party that can deliver growth.

OK, but I have often seen very little sympathy on MN for pensioners, which is why I am wary of calling pensioners "wealthy". Most are not wealthy.

The poor and unemployed are not scroungers and the majority of pensioners are not wealthy. They are all in the same boat, they all want growth in their savings or in the economy in order to get jobs. They are not like the truly privileged who welcome recesssions and want to stop growth in order to "save the planet".

No government is perfect and it would be better to have one with fewer millionaires, but let's judge them by their objectives and their aspirations for growth.

I know that claig, that is why I used 'wealthy' as an adjective to describe that subgroup of pensioners who are wealthy.

Some people want to slow growth, they welcome recession, "bring on the recession" they say, "save the planet" they say. They are usually well-paid and often went to private schools, they are not in the same boat as the rest of us, which is why they are so divorced from our plight that they say "bring on the recession".

Yes, the Cabinet is also full of public school millionaires, but at least they don't say "bring on the recession", they know what is right.

' I mentioned wealthy pensioners as one group who aren't being taken from.'

There are some rich pensioners just like there are some rich knighted bankers, but teh majority of pensioners are not in this position. They are like veryone else, struggling to pay fuel bills and food bills and water bills for teh sake of "saving teh planet", while the rich landowners grow richer with their taxpayer subsidies of windfarms which they say will help "save the planet". "Save the planet" for whom? Not for the poor who are paying through their teeth for heating which makes the rich grow richer.

Recession is disgusting, it is a reversal of growth.

Monbiot says
'I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes.'
and he says 'Bring on the recession'

Some people take their own lives when they lose their jobs and homes. Recession should be avoided at all costs, it is not something to welcome or look forward to. A reversal of growth is a tragedy.

There is enoiugh money in teh world to maintain growth and progress. But it requires real good regulation so that crooks can't steal and destroy economies for their own gain. But that doesn't mean socialist regulation of small businesses trying to make a living - it means regulation of the crooks and fat cats just trying to make a fast buck.

claig I didn't say pensioners were more wealthy, I mentioned wealthy pensioners as one group who aren't being taken from.

Cameron's mum gets her fuel allowance, I lose my child benefit. Nice.

Rome wasn't built in a day and the Coalition recovery from the years of misrule and collapse won't happen overnight, but at the end of the tunnel we will eventually see light.

CelticPromise, it is capitalism that created all the goods we have that have enriched and eased our lives. While the communist East had teh choice of a Trabant or a Trabant, we had all sorts of choices from inexpensive Fiat Puntos to Lamborghinis.

We have progressed and will continue to progress under a free economic system. It is a slow process and not every penny helps humanity, but slowly it does enrich our countries and it is the best system to eventually lift the poor out of poverty and sweatshops.

www.facebook.com/index.php?lh=35c6d77c83e12bdb237388d474ae7660&eu=DCAUIIZd2ZEBJAwdMTMngg#!/notes/andy-hewett/today-i-resigned-from-the-green-party/10150659828908487

Brighton Green Party

'profit which is reinvested... To help humanity progress'

If only that were the case.

Look here, for a Cabinet full of Multi-millionaires, they're just trying their best ok? So lay off.

These are the words of a green environmentalist who is not in favour of too much growth

'If you are of a sensitive disposition, I advise you to turn the page now. I am about to break the last of the universal taboos. I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises.

I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare.'

His article is called 'Bring on the recession'

www.monbiot.com/2007/10/09/bring-on-the-recession/

Fortunately for the people of this country, the government is not a believer in this philosophy.

No Julia none whatsoever

'What's so great about growth anyway? What is the end point if we keep producing/consuming more and more and more? It can't be done unless someone, somewhere, loses out.'

Growth creates wealth. It creates profit which is reinvested to create new products and medicines that help humanity progress. It is why China abandoned teh stagnation of communism and moved towards a capitalist growth model. It is enriching their people and their country, just as it is in India too - India which has more billionaires than us and where a minister recently told us that they don't need our "peaniuts" in aid.

Growth creates wealth and spreads that wealth to the people, which is why communists never win elections in free democratic countries and why the sales of the Morning Star never surpass those of the Daily Mail.

ttosca don't mention The April Thesis, it drives her wild

Bloody hell, crazy- have you no self control?

hello ttosca

'since the disaster and casino Capitalism that happened under Labour also happened in the US, and many other advanced Capitalist countries.'

Yes, but this government would have regulated the banks better. It didn't believe in Gordon Brown's 'light-touch regulation', it was in favour of teh Bank of England being in charge. We probably still would have had a collapse, but not to the same degree. There would have been no note saying "sorry, there's no money left".

' 'reducing red tape' (i.e. regulation) for banking'
Are you sure the reduction in red tape is for banking? I have heard it is for small businesses and employers so that they can get teh economy moving and get people back to work. Vince Cable is very good on regulating the banks. Vince, very possibly, on his own would do a better job of regulating the bankers than New Labour did. I don't think he will be knighting many for their "services to banking". I think he believes in "services to the country and its people".

'It would have occurred if the Tory scum were in power'
Can't agree with this, as I don't know any Tory scum.

'Bad for whom? Their policies are bad for the majority of the public, yes. I'm sure their rich buddies, the banks, and other powerful interests will do just fine.'

Yes, unfortunately that is what happens. The rich always do well, just as tehy did under New Labour, where social mobility declined more than under Thatcher.

'The fact is, our political system is beholden to neo-liberalism and corporate rule. The difference between the two is only one of who is going to shaft you harder and more painfully.'

Yes that is true, but we all know who will shaft us more and leave the notes saying "sorry, there's no money left", even after they have taken all our tax money and increased stealth taxes on teh hardworking public, while knighting bankers and paying BBC style salaries. The public know who will shaft them least and that is why they kicked New Labour out.

What's so great about growth anyway? What is the end point if we keep producing/consuming more and more and more? It can't be done unless someone, somewhere, loses out.

watch this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=share

I'm the one who first posted this on here, remember? :)

'Must be because I'm a wealthy pensioner.'

Pensioners aren't more wealthy. Inflation is rising and food and fuel prices and water and energy prices are rising and they tell them that some of it is to 'save the planet'