advertisement


Why Conservative?

By taking some of the wealth of the richer people, in taxes for example, which is exactly what I said: "deprive some people of their property in order to give to others"

They could give away freely, and some do, e.g. Paul Newman. Am I the only one to see the obvious link between market economy and selfish individualism? And this environmental traedy that we are facing?
 
Or "I'm alright Jack I got mine screw you"

If one was to try and distil what it is to be C/conservative down to its very essence then that short sentence pretty much does it.

You will not get many (if any) tories answering the OP as it would be akin to them saying "I'm a greedy, self centred, entitled twat and here's my justification for this"

Conservatism, by which I mean belief in tory/republican ideology, is the apotheosis of the lowest common denominators of the human condition: Greed, avarice, selfishness, exploitation of those less wealthy and powerful than yourself, "dog eat dog", "law of the jungle", "possession is 9 10th's of the law", "do unto others before they can do it to you", "might is right", keeping as many as possible down in the gutter lest they may be in a position to compete against you/to have a large population of the desperate to be exploited as cannon fodder/Mcjob workers/shit shovellers.... and then conserving that as the status quo.

They prefer (but not exclusively) that the human face on which the boot stamps for ever should not look too like their own, that the voice should not sound too much like their own... that would be a little uncomfortable even for them... so "the other" make the ideal victim.

If I live to 100 I'll never understand how Conservatives are not generally regarded in the same way as those who mug old ladies, sell smack to school kids etc etc... I guess that's why they need the worlds best and most continuous PR dept in the form of virtually every newspaper and media outlet in an attempt to make the unspeakable the acceptable.
 
Am I the only one to see the obvious link between market economy and selfish individualism? And this environmental traedy that we are facing?
No you’re not. However, I suspect you’re in a minority. But the virtues of the market have taken on an all pervasive level of modern politics that infects every narrative on the economy and on social failures. The faith market economy is explicitly based on the philosophy of selfish individualism. It goes back to the liberalism of Adam Smith who thought that the market works best when left up to the natural self interest of buyers and sellers. Smith believed the state should stay out of the market, but even he believed that the role of the state was to provide such things as schools.

Anything that cannot be turned into a commodity has no place.

Modern Neoliberalism raises the market to new heights and ignores the call for social or environmental provision. It takes Smith’s invisible hand and turns it into the hand of God. It takes the traditional liberal view of the market and turns everything, including human agency and saving the planet into a commodity that rises and falls according to the virtues of competition.

If the market doesn’t work for you, you have no one else to blame but yourself. If you do well, you have no one else to thank but yourself.

The market is natural, unemployment is natural, poor people are natural, climate disaster is natural, it’s just the way it is. There is no room for humanitarianism or environmentalism unless you can commodify them

It’s bollocks of course, it so obviously leads to authoritarianism, populism and the movement of wealth from poor to rich, but it is bollocks that an awful lot of people believe in.
 
No you’re not. However, I suspect you’re in a minority. But the virtues of the market have taken on an all pervasive level of modern politics that infects every narrative on the economy and on social failures. The faith market economy is explicitly based on the philosophy of selfish individualism. It goes back to the liberalism of Adam Smith who thought that the market works best when left up to the natural self interest of buyers and sellers. Smith believed the state should stay out of the market, but even he believed that the role of the state was to provide such things as schools.

Anything that cannot be turned into a commodity has no place.

Modern Neoliberalism raises the market to new heights and ignores the call for social or environmental provision. It takes Smith’s invisible hand and turns it into the hand of God. It takes the traditional liberal view of the market and turns everything, including human agency and saving the planet into a commodity that rises and falls according to the virtues of competition.

If the market doesn’t work for you, you have no one else to blame but yourself. If you do well, you have no one else to thank but yourself.

The market is natural, unemployment is natural, poor people are natural, climate disaster is natural, it’s just the way it is. There is no room for humanitarianism or environmentalism unless you can commodify them

It’s bollocks of course, it so obviously leads to authoritarianism, populism and the movement of wealth from poor to rich, but it is bollocks that an awful lot of people believe in.

Well put that man!:)
 
Except that the great driver of inequality over the last 50 years has been how all the benefits of productivity gains have gone to the MD at the expense of the yard sweeper. To a great extent this has been supported and enabled by this 'CEO as Hero' type thinking.
I'm not for one minute saying "CEO as hero" so your suggestion that I am is frankly offensive. I've known a few CEO s and business founders and a good few are arseholes. However they generate jobs. What I'm saying is that someone who contributes more and risks more should be rewarded more than someone who just finds a job, turns up, does what he's told and risks nothing more than this week's pay because of it all goes South he can be doing something else on the same money next week.
 
I don’t think anybody is arguing that everything is of equal value. I’m arguing, rather, that many things which deserve to be of higher value, are not rewarded in proportion to their value to society (measured in terms of how they contribute to the functioning of that society, perhaps); and others are rewarded well beyond their value, measured by the same yardstick. And by and large, the people who get to set those values do so because they have access to power and influence.
Certainly true. Some are rewarded less than their worth, some more. Twas ever thus. However some companies do to our of their way to reward the nasty jobs. My current client, a very large UK food manufacturer with a number of sites, is working towards grading the lavatory cleaners better than the packers, simply because cleaning lavatories is more unpleasant than chucking cakes in a box.
 
Certainly true. Some are rewarded less than their worth, some more. Twas ever thus. However some companies do to our of their way to reward the nasty jobs. My current client, a very large UK food manufacturer with a number of sites, is working towards grading the lavatory cleaners better than the packers, simply because cleaning lavatories is more unpleasant than chucking cakes in a box.
Good to hear. You could argue that being the sort of person who is prepared to tackle the sort of jobs most would refuse, because it needs doing, is something that deserves reward in and of itself. Why don’t carers, who spend their working lives cleaning old people who have soiled themselves, helping them to wash and feed themselves, or generally doing the unpalatable personal care that needs doing, get rewarded more than bankers, who spend much of their time working out how to benefit from others’ misfortune?
 
What I'm saying is that someone who contributes more and risks more should be rewarded more than someone who just finds a job, turns up, does what he's told and risks nothing more than this week's pay because of it all goes South he can be doing something else on the same money next week.

And nobody disputes that. Indeed it’s quite a banal fact.

My point is that the CEO doesn’t deserve an order of magnitude more than they used to get paid a generation ago for doing the same job, especially as it comes at the expense of their employees who have in the same time frame seen they pay, conditions and employment security Go down. And the cult of the CEO has played a big part in that.
 
Why don’t carers, who spend their working lives cleaning old people who have soiled themselves, helping them to wash and feed themselves, or generally doing the unpalatable personal care that needs doing, get rewarded more than bankers, who spend much of their time working out how to benefit from others’ misfortune?

In fairness city bankers do have to buy an extraordinarily large amount of cocaine.
 
Good to hear. You could argue that being the sort of person who is prepared to tackle the sort of jobs most would refuse, because it needs doing, is something that deserves reward in and of itself. Why don’t carers, who spend their working lives cleaning old people who have soiled themselves, helping them to wash and feed themselves, or generally doing the unpalatable personal care that needs doing, get rewarded more than bankers, who spend much of their time working out how to benefit from others’ misfortune?
because of the cost of restitution. If someone at work can't sort out the lavatories, they can go back on box packing or get fired. I'll get someone else to clean tbe loos. However I'd someone screws up my pension, I'm going to hunt him down and exact a brutal and horrible retribution. Shortly after that, a solicitor is going to sue the sh*t out of his company, its shareholders and its underwriters. This is going to involve an awful lot of pain and loss. There's a risk here, and people pay a lot of money to minimise risk. That's why you and I pay insurance. So at least part of the premium is about hiring people who won't foul it up.
 
But that assumes not screwing up your pension is a difficult job. Looking at the morons who are described in, say Liar’s Poker or The Big Short, I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch.
 
And nobody disputes that. Indeed it’s quite a banal fact.

My point is that the CEO doesn’t deserve an order of magnitude more than they used to get paid a generation ago for doing the same job, especially as it comes at the expense of their employees who have in the same time frame seen they pay, conditions and employment security Go down. And the cult of the CEO has played a big part in that.
It's true that the current premium for those of power and influence is too high. However the risks are substantial. I did some work for a company that went down. My losses were modest, but still in excess of £10,000. The investors took a bath for a lot more. Nobody's crying for me, or for them. Nor should they, I do all right. But I don't imagine that you'd like to do a substantial amount of work, incur hotel and travel costs, and get reimbursed at 2p in the pound. Those of us that do accept that risk need to be rewarded when times are good, otherwise why would you bother?
 
It's true that the current premium for those of power and influence is too high. However the risks are substantial. I did some work for a company that went down. My losses were modest, but still in excess of £10,000. The investors took a bath for a lot more. Nobody's crying for me, or for them. Nor should they, I do all right. But I don't imagine that you'd like to do a substantial amount of work, incur hotel and travel costs, and get reimbursed at 2p in the pound. Those of us that do accept that risk need to be rewarded when times are good, otherwise why would you bother?
Why did the company fail? Any culpability on the part of the doubtless well-remunerated board? What happened to the salaried staff? Did they get well paid in case the company folded owing them pay and benefits too?

My point is that you’re basing your arguments on a pile of assumptions about what is right and proper, which have their roots in the neoliberal ideology ks has criticised upthread. I’m just not taking these assumptions on trust any more.
 
But that assumes not screwing up your pension is a difficult job. Looking at the morons who are described in, say Liar’s Poker or The Big Short, I’d say that’s a bit of a stretch.

In my experience City problems are rarely a problem caused by morons but rather by risk and moral hazard.
 
What always sticks in my craw is when firms/CEOs blatantly mither on in public about how they can't afford this or can't afford that when it comes to pay or conditions, yet are quite happy to trouser obscene bonuses or dividends- not to mention immense pensions for themselves. How they can do it and keep a straight face the next time they're interviewed or on the news beggars belief.

Branson is a prime example, as soon as Covid hit he was cap in hand for government handouts and asking staff to take unpaid leave and yet he had no trouble burning pound notes sending himself into space last year.
 
It's true that the current premium for those of power and influence is too high. However the risks are substantial. I did some work for a company that went down. My losses were modest, but still in excess of £10,000. The investors took a bath for a lot more. Nobody's crying for me, or for them. Nor should they, I do all right. But I don't imagine that you'd like to do a substantial amount of work, incur hotel and travel costs, and get reimbursed at 2p in the pound. Those of us that do accept that risk need to be rewarded when times are good, otherwise why would you bother?

But, again, the issue is not that you are paid for your work but that such people (generally) are now paid an order of magnitude more than they used to be for doing essentially the same job a generation or two ago. And this pay has siphoned off the benefits of the productivity gains and driven inequality.
 


advertisement


Back
Top