Generally speaking, I think it is a ludicrous suggestion to double the price of fuel, as has been stated, the economic life of the world, and with it, the kind of life we are only equipped to lead in this modern world will also cease. I am a firm believer that Malthus was wrong, however, we most definitely live within a closed system, so whatever technology we develop in the future to maintain our life styles, it had better be renewable, or short term until the next development arrives... ad infinitum.
Brenmuk on page 2 covers my sentiments adequately:
In an ideal world we would not have become dependent on fossil fuels that are finite and polluting but we are where we are.
Now back to explaining to nelson what is already before his eyes, although I suspect he thought it was his views I did not agree with, not so.
page 1 skeletonwoot:
Don't worry - theres more than enough crude oil left in the world to last a good couple of hundred years more - and don't worry about global warming because that is vastly overstated & still unproven.
The first part is debatable, and only debatable simply because no one can say what oil reserves will be found in the future, there is debate regarding the accuracy of opec reserve figures and also what technology will be invented to enable ever more efficient oil extraction, but as it stands right now there is not one country on Earth with reserves expected to last 200 years.
The second part about global warming is complete tosh. I think you got mixed up with man made global warming, however, the scientific community has a very broad consensus that the current 'rate' at which the planet is warming is faster than at any time throughout the earth's history and it is that which can only be attributed to man's actions.
There is no debate that global warming per se exists, none, zilch, nada.
The planet is engaged on a continuous cycle of warming and cooling. Incidentally, there is even one model that predicts cooling as a result of the warming, if that happens, it is game over, for Britain at least, as she will be plunged beneath a layer of 2 mile thick ice.
page 3 supercoley1:
these days uninsured and un MOT'd wrecks containing a few europeans travel out to these jobs and the tranny vans are no more!!! (Not a generalised view either. I used to work at one (which I biked 9.5 miles to and from each day) and my job was to check the car park for tax discs!!! Got through some paper on that one!!!
Here is the example of bigotry, incase you can't work it out for yourself.
So, on a thread about fuel prices, we have a post about immigrants and illegality, how very refreshing.
I note the job was checking tax discs, not nationality, mot state or insurance (although I admit, insurance will be void if they knew there was no tax) yet we have here examples of un-roadworthy vehicles overladen with foreigners.
The lack of empirical evidence, is, I am sure, not much of a surprise.
page 4 skeletonwoot...again:
We buy from abroad due to labour costs. Because everyone in the UK thinks they deserve a cushy job haanded to them on a plate. They arent willing to work in a factory for £2 an hour because benefits pay more!
This is just breathtaking ignorance of the highest order and actually makes me sad that there are people walking around with this kind of ignorant viewpoint without any understanding as to how our economy got to where it did and the whys of it.
We buy from abroad due to labour costs, that is true, the part about everybody in the U.K. thinking they deserve a cushy job handed to them is just baseless vitriolic rhetoric straight out of the right wing book on pithy but baseless sound bites.
It may have passed you by, but Great Britain is no longer the manufacturing powerhouse with an empire with which to exploit raw materials from at greatly reduced prices, while offloading her manufacturing output at greatly increased prices, she once was. Our dominant economic position was starting to decline before WW2, during it, we were bankrupt, literally, and after it we engaged on a massive Keynesian economic path to rebuild the country and provide jobs and investment. This kept us ticking along nicely until the latter part of the 60's and into the 70's when the investment and building had run its course and we were again trying to stand on our own two feet. Unfortunately for us, by this time, our empire had all but vanished, and the global economy had moved on, meaning we were now having to compete on the global stage with all the other manufacturing center’s which had started to spring up, in Asia, along with our pre-existing competitors in Europe and America.
Couple this with increasing workplace union - management struggles and a singular lack of capital investment in industry, and it is very easy to see how the costs for British made goods were becoming non competitive on the global economic stage especially at a time when the rest of the world was increasing investment and efficiency.
As a result, unemployment started to increase as this lack of competitiveness drove companies to close down or shrink in size, which in turn had a knock on effect of reducing demand for those who supplied goods and services to British manufacturing, thus further increasing unemployment and driving down demand.
It is evident that something had to be done. Step forward Thatcher. I hate Thatcher, with a passion, but on this she was absolutely spot on. She realised the economy needed a change of direction and a different make-up than that which was failing, and failing badly. The thing she did get wrong however, will be the same mistake, indeed IS, the same mistake Cameron is making, shrinking the state at a time when state investment in infrastructure is badly needed to stimulate jobs, growth and building.
Sure, selling off all the nationalised industries went some way towards increasing efficiencies and providing the investment the tory government was unwilling to provide, and also fattened the govt’s coffers. Which as a good thing, considering under Thatcher unemployment rose and so did the state as benefit claimants expanded along with it… naturally. So fair enough, be a right winger, but at least understand where right wing ideology falls down, particularly at times of economic distress, rolling back the state is never the answer, and actually, quite ironically, increases those groups you despise so much, the unemployed.
Back to the main point regarding Britain’s changing economy. Switching from a primary and secondary based economy to a tertiary and quaternary based economy is what drove the coal mines to be shut down, but it's also why we have the Britain of today that we have, in both its economic and its social structure.
As a side issue, this is why New Labour introduced tuition fees for university. The population was to be better educated for a high tech and specialised tertiary and quaternary economy, in a world where manufacturing of easy to automate and low skill items being focused in the 3rd world, Britain was to become the world leaders in skilled manufacturing such as bio tech, nano tech, and providing highly specialised engineering and services, along with expanding the financial sector and encouraging outside investment from foreign companies in these industries... thus providing Britain with a niche on the world stage.
That is why we buy from abroad, and that is why it is not even a fraction towards an answer simply saying people in Britain are lazy, it is those who say that who are the lazy ones.
People are not willing to work in a factory for £2 an hour because the national minimum wage is over £6ph, this has also increased, as it should, as a result of the changing face of Britain’s economy. £2 ph no longer cuts it in a world that is post industrialised.
Don't like it? Change the system, do not villify those on the national minimum wage who earn a full and massive £12k p.a.
I think you would agree, £4k p.a. (for someone on £2 ph working 40 hrs a week) would barely cover a person's food for a year.
Another side point you are most certainly unaware of, is that a population of the size we have in Britain, living under a capitalist economy how we do, requires that in periods of FULL EMPLOYMENT, there is to be between 500,000 and 750,000 people unemployed.
That is how the system works, that is how the system is at it’s most efficient, that is how the economy and monetary policy is best balanced.
Tell me, what would you do with those half a million people who are sacrificed at the alter of capitalism so the rest of us can find well paying jobs and not have to worry too much about inflation getting out of control?
Whereas in India & China people will work because their societies have not yet been corrupted by the welfare system.
I think you will find, that in India and china there is little in the way of social justice, social responsibility or socialised directives governing employment law.
As a working class man, I thank my lucky stars I live in a country more enlightened towards worker's rights which have increased my safety in the workplace, increased my wages and increased the time I get to spend with my family. Trust me, I have spent 70 + hours per week engaged in back breaking manual work for very little pay and little heed to health and safety, and I am eternally grateful the work place has been brought, albeit kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.
If you want to go back to that, enjoy yaself, but I reckon you'll be working on your own.
I also rather like the fact that my taxes go towards a system that takes note of, and tries to help those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances.
There but for the grace of god go I (I am not religious, but you get the sentiment)
And if you are still in any doubt as to the real problem areas in our society, especially during these times with economic woes a plenty, you may wish to take note of the following regarding benefit claimants and benefit cheats.
More money goes unclaimed that people are legally entitled to through the benefit system than that which is estimated to be lost through benefit fraud.
The figure for unclaimed benefit is circa £2billion
The figure for benefit fraud is circa £1billion.
Now pay attention to the following:
vodafone owe £6billion tax
google pay something like 2% tax
Tesco is registered offshore so it diverts most of what it should be paying outside the country
HMRC's building, is part owned by a company registered in the channel islands, and thus even the rent the british government pay is squirrelled away into tax havens.
And you come out with this tripe about £2 ph for factory workers? get a clue.
page 4 supercoley1:
If labour costs and work conditions hadn't been such a priority we would still be building cars in this country for our own brands. Just as I would still be working in a major diesel industrial engine manufacturer (the biggies) These are the costs of wanting loads of money, loads of luxuries whilst paying as little as possible for them. Blame ourselves and the unions we bought into always pushing for more on our behalf.
no, blame human nature... and that which I write above.
As for the rest of SC's post from which I take the above quote, i have some sympathy with the views expressed, however, I would say we are not in a perfect world, and everyone and their circumstances are different.
page 4 skeletonwoot:
If you put taxes up on fuel all you will do is hurt middle england more (the people who basically keep the country going)
Given the rates at which working tax credits are paid and family tax credits, in addition to who child benefit is paid to (a couple earning £80k between them can claim under Tory plans, previously the sky was the limit) it seems massively ironic he would choose to invoke middle England, while holding the views on benefit claimants that he does.
BTW, where do you stand on a universal welfare system? Do you think people should be able to opt out of paying national insurance, of course, with the proviso that they refuse to accept any national assistance.
Before you answer, think carefully about the costs involved, education, primary, secondary, higher, then there is healthcare, which may not seem so daunting, until you factor in emergency care ala A&E.
You either agree with a system that provides a safety net, but which costs money, or you don't.
And back to the quote above, actually, you hurt everybody if you increase costs for everybody, and lets be honest here, you hurt those on the lowest wages the most, not to mention the disabled who depend on vehicle ownership but who may have to rely on benefits just to be able to function to any meaningful way within society.
But yer, middle england will not only hurt the most, but be the only ones hurt
and yet again, skeletonwoot entertains us with his insight into the hard hitting social issues of the day in 21st century Britain, page 5:
Te unemployed on benefits dont care because they pay for nothing anyway. The rich can afford it so they dont care... Yet again its middle england that will foot the bill.
"The unemployed on benefits don't care because they pay for nothing anyway"
So good I quoted it twice, this man is a comedy genius and I urge him to forward this thread to bbc new talent, they surely would sign him up in an instant.
At a time of economic meltdown, when every job is being chased by 5 people, when the private sector is incapable of replacing the number of jobs lost in the public sector in addition to the meltdown of employment security, this guy comes out with comedy gold.
Buggar it, I will write it again it really is that good.
"the unemployed on benefits dont care because they pay for nothing anyway"
Where to start with this gem? How about trying to establish the rigorous work gone into forming this conclusion, on what is it based, on who is it based, what case studies had been done that can substantively back up claims of this nature that the unemployed simply do not care.
It is true, in some skewed indirect but easily understandable to those with limited cognitive ability, that the unemployed on benefits do not pay for anything, as they receive benefits, bordering on a tautology there, but what have we come to expect from this chap?
An alternative way of looking at the issue, would be to more accurately explain that those on benefits, have at some point in the past, and will at some point in the future contribute via direct taxation in the form of income tax. Thus, (using the figures I mentioned earlier regarding eligibility of benefits) it is entirely right, proper, legal and correct that people who find themselves unemployed (for whatever reasons) meeting the requisite eligibility criteria, are infact given the benefits to which they are entitled.
Additionally, these benefit recipients will not only pay out more as a percentage of their income than anyone else in society on food, clothing and fuel, they will, rather perversely, further erode whatever original benefit entitlement they had, through paying the taxes on these goods and services.
I think you will find, the unemployed on benefits, do care if prices increase, they care only too much.
and here, in the same post on page 5 as the quote from above, we have the invokation of hippies:
Just so the hippys can claim their saving the earth.
and still, this nugget still finds itself being put forward, again, by skeletonwoot, on page 5:
Besides all this is utter futility anyway as global warming / climate change is yet to be proven anyway.
So good he said it twice.
but there is some chink of light I can see within humanity as Morgan Freeman also see's the ridiculousness in skeletonwoots comment:
Morgan Freeman said:
skeletonw00t said:
Besides all this is utter futility anyway as global warming / climate change is yet to be proven anyway.
LOL.
Really?
and again, on page 5, they must be starting to feel safe now, seeing other comments aligning with their own deeply held prejudices, ianho gets in on the action:
Back on track now, the operator said, that's a shame, i could have 20% off my current water tariff! What another blow for the working man??
I know it's my water and i have wasted it, but why should i lump it for a 'can't be bothered'. I make no illusions, times are hard, but there are jobs out there, i know that for a fact. It's just in this society, people don't like the minimum wage.
Given what i have responded to above, I don't think we need to read me repeating myself. But for Nelson's benefit, seeing as he can't read the thread in conjunction with what i had originally posted, i include it here in the hope he learns something about comprehension and then going off to do your own research.
I hope this will suffice for now, it is currently 02:30 and I am bored now of explaining things that are right in front of your eyes.
And all on a thread about petrol prices