Is this really what people want?

The law of unintended consequences ...

Back a little further, Claig - who makes the law and who advises them?

The law for things that don't change, eg murder, is easy enough. But with our changing world, new technology etc we keep needing new laws, as the criminals (tax evaders) and those who help them(crooked accountants/bankers/politicians, etc) are always one step ahead.

It's obvious that the law alone can't deal with this. If it could, it would have.

I think it might be capitalism itself that is the problem, coupled with lack of democracy, lack of transparency etc.

Human nature, uber alles sadly shall prevail. Capitalism works best. In the book I have almost finished on North Korea the author who worked at the White House is now looking at what would happen at unification if it were to happen. At present the population as in Animal Farm etc think they have the best lives in the world, well fed, easy, lovely Government and that the West has a terrible time (no internet except a few people allowed a N Korea intranet access, one phone for 20 people). If you can keep people thinking this is the best thing ever then they are not competing against capitalism and those in South Korea ,. As soon as you allow comparisons with abroad you get the China situation - no human rights but suddenly allowing some people to get rich.

A communist country - China - now has a much much bigger difference between rich and poor than the US and UK do.

I suspect the lifestyle of the Korean leader and his family, the gourmet meals flown in and the like (which probably killed the last one early as he ate too much and too badly - Western lifestyles can kill) mean an even bigger difference between the very very few rich there and most people.

I don't hvae a problem with big differences as long as the poor are fed though. Life is not supposed to be fair.

Good point, Solo. They are two sides of teh same coin. But one is positive, the other negative. We create laws and regulations to curb and punish the negative sicnce teh negative harms other citizens.

'So how to suppress those aspects of human nature that are detrimental to the common good, while allowing the creative forces to flourish?'

The law.

Go a little further, Claig. What causes corruption? Human nature? Opportunism? Greed? Competitiveness? Isn't that the same thing that pushes entrepreneurs to succeed?

So how to suppress those aspects of human nature that are detrimental to the common good, while allowing the creative forces to flourish?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Heaven knows that I categorically and absolutely hold no truck with conspiracy theories, but corruption is enabled by conspiracy, conspiracy against the public.

But we have regulated capitalism. We have a government that we elect that regulates. We know that some of our representatives are lobbied by companies and may earn money from them and some were even said to be "cabs for hire". That is what we must sort out, because these people are representatives of teh people, not representatives of teh corporations. We must strive to remove corruption from public life, because these people in theory represent us not business.

This is not a problem of capitalism or free markets but a problem of government and governance.

Unions are right to demand higher wages as are workers and everyone else. Whether they succeed in their demands is the result of free market labour negotiations.

Capitalism is not bad, it is corruption that is bad. Capitalism unleashes the human spirit and drives it on to excel in innovation which helps humanity. Apple Computer began in a garage and is now the most profitable company in the world and produces goods that are used by millions of people which help increase teh knowledge and lives of millions. The mega corporations were not able to stop Apple succeeding, it is they who have declined while Apple rose. Apple rose because they delivered goods that people wanted. They succeeded in a capitalist system that allows free rein to bright people who were ambitious and dedicated and who flourished in a free market.

Capiatlism offers incentive which inspires people to reach for the prize and to pluck the apple from the tree. It is meritocratic and and free market frees the human spirit.

Corruption is what we are against. It conspires against free markets and free peoples. We need governments to regulate against it and to be untainted by it.

should have said @ claig sweetly, if you manage to read all that.

Sorry I disagree, consider regulated capitalism (which competes very well against the free market) and then consider Unions and the workers fight for better pay and conditions. Then consider supply and demand (shakes head because it's an oxymoron) Under one system the state requisitions profit which provides for welfare and the means to perpetuate state control. In the case of free markets the opposite happens, which is why our own democratic freedom can ONLY be excersised over lobbying shops/food corps etc. but not in any expectation that we shall continue to have free education or health.

This makes a great deal of sense, is very easy to understand
www.marxism.org.uk/pack/economics.html marxist economics for numpties! or those not interested in a lot of jargon and dispels the myth that paid labour can provide demand, because if labour is paid at too higher rate, the capitalist will not invest. Forget supply and demand (the corner stone of most economic theory) , it is a side show not born out in actual facts. Unions fight for greater pay....without massive structural change, missing the point that greater pay alone may increase demand but not productivity. BUT you can have a government step in as the capitalist requisitioning profit, propping up investment/productivity (as in Keynes) and then acting as a font of all welfare, or you can have private profit making entities under free market economics which actually doesn't have your interests are heart. Either way a welfare need is created, under one system the need is met under the other it goes unmet.

In basic terms....state capitalism wins over free markets.....but ONLY because it is in competition to free markets! neither is humane or has the capacity to self sustain itself indefinately.One is a step in the right direction but still relies upon the nation state and competition and workers always being paid less than the rate of pay/hrs worked. EVEN if the state employed more people, it would have to pay them at less than the real value realised in what they produce.

In short, markets fail through interference, I agree with xenia but unregulated markets burn themselves out not just because of suply at demand but because a contradiction exists, whereby more demand equals less profit, less profit equals less investment, less investment equals less labour required etc,........less demand on so on. It simply will not sustain itself, which is why shrinking states, declining wages and growing welfare need shows us capitalism is in its final throes. Has been since it's inception State capitalism isn't in decline but when it is no longer pitted against the west it will also not sustain itself.

Quite simply, Xenia, the reason benefits have had increases while wages haven't is because benefits are classed as the minimum needed to live off.

If the cost if gas, electricity, water and food has all risen, then the previous amount of benefits will not cover that, because it was already the minimum needed to live off.

If your gas, electricity, water and food costs £68 a week, and your benefits are £68 a week, then you can just about cover those basic living expenses.

If your gas, electricity, water and food come to £71 a week, but you are still only getting £68 a week, you CAN'T cover those basic living expenses.

Surely that's just basic Mathematics, Xenia?!

I would have thought that somebody intelligent enough to pay as much tax as you keep complaining that you have to would be able to see that out of £68 a week you can't cover £71 of basic living expenses.

Where do you think they will cut that £3 a week from? Their Gas bill? Most can't afford to turn on their heating unless it is below zero outside. From their electricity bill? They still need to be able to turn on the lights when it is dark, or use their cooker or fridge freezer. From their water bill? They still need to wash themselves, their clothes, their dishes, their floors, they still need to be able to flush their chain. From their food budget? That £3 is a day's dinner. Are they meant to go without dinner for that day?

'you can't have a free market with regulation'

This is a bit like saying tha tyou can't have a free people with the law. We are a free people within the law. We have to wear seatbelts, but we are still free within the law.

A free market is just like a fair, unfixed, unrigged game of football. The regulation is the rules of the game, set by the authorities. All teams can compete in the football tournament provided they abide by the rules of the game. It is possible to have a free market with regulation, you just need to set the parameters of the game.

Claig you can't have a free market with regulation, you can either have a free market or state capitalism (think stalin ) or we could opt for a third more equitable and humane system. Which the lobbying multi-nationals will not allow.

Good points Solo, spot on. I read this a little while back, Let Them Eat Junk: How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Them-Eat-Junk-Capitalism/dp/0745328067

The cost to governments is huge in terms of public health, the profits realised by the multinationals isn't taxed here at a rate that will offset the costs, not to mention the environmental degradation with almost all food being grown and transported on petro chemicals. Our whole food system relies upon oil. Food security is going to become a huge issue and it will lead to civil unrest here just as it already is in other parts of the world.

We want a free market, but one in which the government sets the rules on behalf of the people.

Agree Solo. The governmentr is in charge of regulation - of financial products and food and everything else. We need tough regulation - no more 'light touch' regulation - in all spheres that affect the public well-being.

X posted. Good point about Olympics, Mini.

Heaven knowes that I hold no truck with conspiracy theories, but some suggest that there may be even more to it.

Claig it's also because these multinational food and drink companies have been very good at lobbying governments for the last couple of centuries (nothing new here).

And it's because this present government believes in as little regulation as possible.

Imo the only real democratic choice you get in life is to choose where to shop. The govt limits your choice by supporting multinationals that can then sell unhealthy food cheaply. These manufacturers are then directly responsible for some of the obesity and also for the resulting burden on the health service. (And don't get me started on alcohol and cigarettes). Then, as if they haven't done enough harm, they go abroad to avoid paying tax to help solve the problems they have created.

But the problem starts and ends with the government.

Agree that the profitability of the food processing industry seems to weigh high in this.

Why do we not tax those foods to the hilt, same reason that in American Charter schools the kids only have access to certain foods, McDs and Coke out of machines. The coca Cola (doesn't even come up a spelling mistake on google what does that tell you!) pay these private schools a fee and expect no competition, it forms part of the schools income.

OK that is the states but just look at the Olympics here, we should have been using our own home grown businesses and healthy food providers, instead the corporates sqeezed everyone else out. Where did they pay their taxes off all the income made out of the olympics.

I remember seeing a programme once about the difference between teh food that the working class in Turin cook and the food that the working class in one of our Scottish cities cook. Both were working class and didn't have much spare cash, but the difference in the goodness of the food was noticeable.

The reason for that difference is education. It has not been a priority to pass down the knowledge of what is good and how to prepare it. It should be a priority in schools to teach these things up until the age of 16. It should be given more importance and there should be rigorous exams in it that are compulsory. this is a life skill that will improve health over the lifespan of every individual.

There is lots of talk about salt and sugar, but little about some of the other additives in food. Why?

I also knew a very poor family - cousin of a cousin. Their cupboards were just full of shit: packet and processed food. Not one potato in the house - tins of potatoes yes, but not one fresh piece of veg (certainly not fruit). Of course, I'm not saying all the poor eat like that. It is education after all. But I've heard this argument so many times that the poor in the UK can't afford to eat. I'm sorry but IME this is nonsense.

'We could tax those unhealthy foods to the hilt to put people off buying them. We could put the price of alcohol and fizzy drinks up 10 times'

That is the point; we don't do those things. Why?
It is about education - not just the usual salt and sugar message, but other additives and chemicals that are more dangerous to health.

People trust regulators for financial products, they believe someone has approved them and that they will not be ripped off. Similarly, people trust the food we eat is not harmful.

The poor do not eat at mcdonalds...not unless they only eat twice a week.

The poor aren't thick. They could eat carrots and tinned sardines or do we think their IQs are too low to find cheap healthy foods? We could tax those unhealthy foods to the hilt to put people off buying them. We could put the price of alcohol and fizzy drinks up 10 times. If I only drink tap water I don't see why the poor can't. Fizzy drinks are one of the worst things people do drink. Tap water is free. I virtually never eat out. The poor seem to manage that a lot. Their one person's macdonald's could fee me for days.