Hilarious!: ‘Too rich’ Brits lack desire, says Heseltine

[ttosca]

By EMMA CLARK
Published on Monday 25 March 2013 07:20

BRITAIN lacks a ?national will? to improve its economy because people are too rich, former deputy prime minister Lord Heseltine has suggested.

The Conservative grandee questioned whether people who live comfortably in advanced economies are motivated to strive for better.

However in economies like China and India, which are growing at a much faster rate than Britain, people are driven to overcome ?real problems?.

In an interview with the Independent, Lord Heseltine warned that the economy could keep drifting down.

He told the newspaper: ?There is no God-given rule saying you?ve got to have a well-performing economy. It could be an indifferent economy.

?It?s a question of whether the national will is there; whether we want it. And the richer you get the less imperative there is.

?Maybe one of the problems of advanced economies is that people are sufficiently well off that they don?t need to drive themselves any more.?

He later added that it in the nature of most people to ?desire to do something and to do it better?.

He also questioned official GDP statistics and instead pointed to rising employment and house prices as indicators that the economy was recovering.

Lord Heseltine is a senior adviser to the coalition Government on growth, focussing especially on the regeneration of cities.

www.scotsman.com/news/uk/too-rich-brits-lack-desire-says-heseltine-1-2855791

--

You got that? Brits are 'too rich' -- that would explain the huge rise in homelessness and use of foodbanks in the past few years.

So presumably he'd supporting huge confiscatory taxes on wealth so that all the richest people become more so that they can work harder for the sake of the economy?

Or is it just more of the same: the rich need to be paid well to be motivated to work but the poor need to be paid poorly in order to be motivated to work?

Un. Fucking. Believable.

I notice that you have not answered my question in that you did not name a Marxist society that has remained true to the principles of Marx and is stable. You may want to ponder why such a society never has existed (and never will). All you can say is that people 'need' to change how they think.

Capitalism is precisly about mutual beneficial behaviour and creating synergies between the different parties. Most of the human race are not so hung up on class (or ownership of the means of production as you put it) as Marxists are, because in a free society (such as ours) we have a choice.

And that choice is? who to sell your labour to, whether to work at all????? not really. There is no choice.

You can not have socialist states sitting beside capitalists states. Look at the news today, what is America up to? flying training flights over North Korea. That tells you all you need to know about how socialism is undermined by imperialist forces. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21972936 and don't get suckered in by the corporate bias in the reporting!

The problem is one of a corporate owned press feeding bullshit to those of us in the west so that we back American imperialism.

Are you saying that North Korea is an example of a Marxist state and that you would prefer to live there than say the USA?
And also are you saying that we should have the choice not to work at all and therefore exploit the hard work of others ? I thought that you were against the explotation of workers.

'The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure'

How are families and marriage determined by "production of the means to support human life"?

'the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced'

But aristocrats produced nothing so why were they at the top of the tree?

'the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange'

But it is brains (or lack of) that generated Marxism and the argument that "modes of production and exchange" needed to be changed?

'Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living...'

That is correct and only natural. The past plays a large part in the present. Who you are today depends on your past and your history. History matters. But that is why Marxists are unrealistic since they want to banish history, tear up the past, remake history and create a "year zero", a nirvana, a utopia that only exists in their "brains" and not in "modes of production and esxchange".

I am not saying that North Korea is a Marxist state what I am saying is that they have attempted to move towards socialism and they are undermined, in the same way as Russia, Bolivia, Argentina, Vietnam, China, Valenzuela and Cuba and many more.

This will make you think about how capitalism wins it's wars

This is also worth a watch as it explains both the reasons why and the methods used to undermine other states so that corporations can profit from privatising that countries resources such as oil.

Capitalism creates unemployment. How often have you seen me jumping up and down about benefits cuts? I don't believe in paying people to sit idle but capitalism creates both the exploitation of workers for profit and the exploitation of workers who pay taxes to keep other workers that capitalism chucks on the unwanted heap.

'The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure'

The Marxists wronly believe that social structure is caused by "production". It has nothing to do with production and everything to do with power and privilege passed down through history. It is social mobility and capitalism that allows people like Alan Sugar to become a Lord that reforms the social structure from one based on privilege to one based on merit.

The social elite and ruling classes hold back the population and true social mobility by using false proletarian prophets who spout fallacies, destroy freedom and force communal uniformity on people.

The UN recognised Pol Pot as a legitimate government for 15 years after teh genocide.

Pol Pot's regime believed in communal values and suppressed individual freedom.

"Property became collective, and education was dispensed at communal schools. Children were raised on a communal basis. Even meals were prepared and eaten communally."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

This is unnatural and imposed on the population by a ruling elite. That is why it has passed and natural order has once again been restored. Puppets and their masters will one day try to suppress the people again, but such tyranny and unnatural social structures will never prevail because humans yearn to be free. That is nature and it will always prevail and the utopian, dystopian messiahs are always doomed to fail.

Marxist do not believe that structure of society starts and ends with production. There is a dialectic btw production and social structure. This means that production shapes society, society shapes production. Chicken and egg and all that Claig.

The greens and elites want to reduce production and consumption. They say that production is wasting resources. They intend to reduce the standard of living of the population, to set them back by limiting their productive capacity and pricing it out of existence by carbon taxes which raise the cost of energy thereby hindering production.

Capitalists want production, they want to create goods and create wealth for their companies and the employees that work for them.

A socialist regulated controlled production system confines and regulates the population. A free, open, capitalist production system frees the population to pursue their own interests and dreams rather than communally dictated ones, and creates innovation and progress for the population. That is why controlling elites and their puppets want to suppress the creative spirit of capitalist enterprise and production.

Human beings are naturally productive and want to produce. I think that even the Bible says something like "go forth and produce". But the elites and the greens want a reduction in world population, a lowering of production of people and goods. One is natural, the other is unnatural.

I think it is entirely possible to cut production and reduce population without starving people into an early grave claig. I am not Christian and have no interest in what some funny little book written by jumped up sexist men has to say about reproduction we do have a population problem, there said it, now what? It is entirely possible to increase living standards without littering the globe with widgets.

'It is entirely possible to increase living standards without littering the globe with widgets'

Businesses create widgets and hire people to create those widgets. Businesses create employment and raise the standard of living of their employees and of society. As society becomes richer, the standard of living increases. 100 years ago most people had outside toilets, now with the increase in wealth brought about by capitalism, this is no longer the case.

Austerity and depression will set back the progress of the population and reduce the standard of living created by hard-working people and hard-working businesses.

Business require capital in order to thrive and they are being starved of capital by banks who are building up their own balance sheets with billions of pounds of public funds. In Cyprus, we have seen banks raid the accounts of the public and businesses and churches and of pensioners' life savings to build up their balance sheets. The people who have raided the people's capital are not capitalists, they don't run businesses, they are a ruling elite who have decided to dispropriate the people.

'I think it is entirely possible to cut production and reduce population without starving people into an early grave'

It is about reducing the standard of living of people, making them work longer, cutting their pensions, cutting their benefits, cutting their rights. It is happening because there is no growth, a reduction in production and consumption, a reduction in the production of widgets by companies. The solution is growth, not more austerity. The solution is a cutting of carbon taxes, an end to double digit rises in fuel bills, so that hard-working people have more money in their pockets. The solution is an end to the picking of people's pockets in order to reduce their standard of living.

'we do have a population problem'

That is what the elites and the greens say. They don't believe in production or the productive capacity and abilities of the population. They don't believe in growth and progress, they believe in cuts and austerity.

They tell us that we are wasting food and are wasting resources. They put propaganda on our TV screens with earnest young leftwingers preaching to us how we should scavenge in bins for sandwiches that supermarkets throw away because they have passed their sell by date. They tell us that that is wasteful and we are being profligate. They pretend they want a zero waste society. But there is no such thing. If a child leaves half their dinner, it is not a waste, it is because the child is full up. We don't have to stuff our selves silly in order to meet their "zero waste" targets by eating food that would go off anyway if passing its sell by date.

They want us to buyt less carrots and buy less widgets. But this means that the farmer and producer will sell less carrots and less widgets and hence make less profit. That is what they want. A reduction in the profitable productive capacity of the workforce.

They look at "production" figures but ignore the real purpose of production - the creation of wealth by the supply of goods for people's needs.

The farmer's field will produce more carrots every year because there is no threat to the planet, the earth replenishes itself. There is no need to cut back, cut population, cut wages, cut benefits, cut consumption in order to "save the planet" as their propaganda constantly tells us.

We have seen how they plan, regulate and run things with their "target culture". We have seen how this "target culture" led to the unnecessary death of thousands of people in our hospitals. They set targets for waste, and tell us we are wasting resources.

They look at numbers and resources and targets and value them more highly than people.

Put people at the forefront, relegate the planners' numbers second. Put growth, production and wealth creation at the forefront, relegate targets and controls second.

Free up business, give capital to business, turn the wheels of the economy that makes society rich.

Serve the people, not targets.

These arguments seem familiar to me. Oh yeah, I've listened but he overlooks the fact that capitalism itself is flawed. I also don't go in for greenies whether they be tree climbing or devil worshipping.

Capitalism turned the United States into the wealthiest country in the world - a country founded by poor immigrants from Europe only a few hundred years ago.

Capitalism is not flawed. It is communism and its control society planning mentality that is flawed, because it removes freedom and reduces individual creativity and incentive and makes them secondary to communal planning conducted by committee and think tank.

Thousands of people from Latin America try to enter the United States each year in order to escape grinding poverty and work their way up in a capitalist society that offers individuals more rewards for hard works.

They don't head to the US to be exploited, they head there for a better living.

The communist societies built walls to stop their people escaping and banned them from travelling abroad. People from the West weren't flocking to enter communist countries.

The communist experiment failed and has largely been disbanded.

Maria Sharapova has earned somewhere in the region of 200 million dollars. Much of that has been paid by capitalist advertisers and sponsors who used her image to sell their products. Everyone's a winner. Individuals couldn't receive those sorts of rewards in a communist system.

That is why most people, even though they will never earn those rewards, prefer to live in a society where that is possible than in one where their earnings are distributed communally.

Did you watch that short history lesson I linked to? can't have done.

American/corporate imperialism has undermined the entire globe through a mixture of trade arrangements, under-cover terrorism, sanctions, military actions and bribes to dictators. It does this so that the bank/corporate nexus can continue to grow rich at the expense of both the American state itself and the vast numbers of poor and starving people in the west and also in underdeveloped countries.

There are families living in tents in major U.S cities and it has the greatest wealth inequality of any nation. How you can say that vast wealth side by side with people living in tents and lacking even basic health care and food can be good, I don't know.

I'm not in favour of large state socialism claig

Housing co-operatives, worker co-operatives, community organising, democratic process at every level. I am not in favour of a vanguard of "elite" thinkers taking control. What went before failed because people haven't willingly wanted socialism. You can't make socialism work it requires cooperation.

All countries are engaged in realpolitik. The Soviet Union was an empire that ran other countries and imposed its will on them.

I don't think wealth inequality matters as long as people do not live in poverty. I don't care how much money Tony Blair or Tony Benn have. It is nothing to do with me.

There are people living in tents in our country too. It is not good. But I would still prefer to live here than in a communist country where ambition and progression are capped and limited and where there are "limits to growth" unless you join the party and are in with the right crowd.

We live in a free society. Labour say they are socialist. If you don't think so, then you are free to set up or join other socialist parties and try to convince the electorate that you have the best policies. I believe in freedom and democracy. What I don't believe in is the "my way or the highway" philosophy of communist systems that stop other parties existing and standing for election.

Today I read a report that Dennis Healey said something like UKIP are bastards. There are millions of people who disagree with him and have the right to express that at an election.

What I would not like is a band of socialists and committees determining the rights of the rest of the population who don't agree with them. I don't believe in elites from Oxbridge or think tanks telling the rest of the public what is good for them. If the people want socialism, then so be it, that is democracy.

Capitalism has created the technology to feed the world and prevent disease and yet it lays humans to waste all over the globe in its relentless pursuit of that golden 3% growth.

I am particularly interested in history, antiques and art. I feel very strongly that art should be available to all people not held in vaults for private collections. Poetry, art, great antiques, literature and medicine should be available to all, widgets won't feed the world and neither will art but our greatest human achievements are either private property, the pursuit of the rich or largely unobtainable. People can not meet their full human potential on empty bellies.

Capitalism turned the United States into the wealthiest country in the world with the largest debt.

'Capitalism has created the technology to feed the world and prevent disease and yet it lays humans to waste all over the globe in its relentless pursuit of that golden 3% growth.'

It is not capitalism that does that. It is people and often elites. There is a difference between them and capitalism.

It is certain green policies made by elites at global conferences that have set "targets" with their "target culture" that mean that certain crops that could be used to feed people are instead used to create "biofuels" in order to, so they say, "save the planet", which has resulted in food prices rising and has led to food riots in some countries. Capitalists didn't create the "target culture", it was people who have probably never run businesses who set those targets while saying that they only wanted to "save the planet".

When Microsoft or Google create their European HQ in a European country, it is major news and the Prime Minister of that country goes on TV to tell the people because it is a very good thing. It means that local people will be employed there and will improve their skills. It helps the whole country. That is the good that capitalism does.

And when Microsoft sets up subsidiaries in Bangalore that is a very good thing and hundreds of Indian highly-trained graduates benefit from that investment and can improve their skills and prospects by working for one of the world's top companies.

Companies don't spend their time plotting how to exploit their workers. Businesses are a force for good. Investment is a great thing.

I don't agree with you about art. I don't think that the government should have the monopoly on art. If someone bought a work of art, then it belongs to them. I don't believe a government should strip that from them. If the government wants it for the people then they should buy it in the market.