tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post7245353186680169391..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Will 2015 Be Labour's Poisoned Chalice?Philhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-25614532370613640872013-12-31T16:23:39.180+00:002013-12-31T16:23:39.180+00:00Brian, have the balls to carry through your logic ...Brian, have the balls to carry through your logic to dare I say it, its logical conclusion!<br /><br />You have opened up the question, some people receive x amount of public goods, which you narrowly, and conveniently (if you wish to be an apologist for the wealthy) define as those specifically provided by the government. But this leads (again very conveniently!) to a very narrow view of economic life and of austerity. Austerity becomes limited to those on low incomes, those who rely on publicly provided services (most people). So your view totally discriminates against those who have relatively little in the first place and leaves be those who have relatively a great deal. I am sure you are conscious of this.<br /><br />But all great development of ideas have started with limited ambition, so we must thank you for raising the question, thereby allowing us to take your idea and run with it, so to speak.<br /><br />In our society goods are provided via a division of labour, and many of the vital goods provided are made by those overseas. Also many publicly provided goods, such as universities, provide those who have plenty in life with vital tools to give them that edge over those less fortunate, or possibly less able. But that they rely on publicly provided goods is obvious. But why isn’t the car made in Vietnam by Vietnamese workers a public good, whereas the operation carried out by the NHS doctor is? Isn’t it correct that we should view all goods and services as public goods, that if less labour and material were directed to the wealthy then that would free up resources for everyone else? Couldn’t we prioritise say, operations over 50 varieties of shampoo or ornaments over road building or Ipad production over military spending or military spending over Ipads.<br /><br />Then when we as humans think in these terms can we then t start to think of austerity in much more fundamental terms, rather than turning into an exercise in cruelty and pandering to the lowest common denominator, more likely than not to fail and be overturned by the next government anyway?<br /><br />You have shown the way Brian, time for people to question what other people get and why. The poor have every right to ask this question just as much as the rich do. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-16803218661295944232013-12-30T21:22:01.921+00:002013-12-30T21:22:01.921+00:00But these are not publicly provided goods: a rathe...But these are not publicly provided goods: a rather important distinction in my view.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01876656586539650027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87494109941119965162013-12-30T11:31:21.775+00:002013-12-30T11:31:21.775+00:00I am sure Brian will agree with me that all rich f...I am sure Brian will agree with me that all rich folk should have to give up their second and third homes, their second and third cars, their private swimming pools, their multiple holidays per year, their childs ridiculously lavish indulgences etc etc etc. These public goods in a few hands, while others go hungry is a downright disgrace.<br /><br />Brian hints at something I have said for some time. Let us have real austerity, not this cruel and viscous attack on those at the bottom. Let us challenge what <b>everyone</b> has, and let us start at the top and work our way down from there. If after relieving the wealthy of all their superfluous public goods, we still have to take stuff off the elderly poor and the disabled, so be it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-33312171904328272992013-12-29T14:07:38.363+00:002013-12-29T14:07:38.363+00:00Glut of two bedroom flats meant to say, thank god ...Glut of two bedroom flats meant to say, thank god there are no pedants hanging about.jimboonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-44317513187837652262013-12-29T02:36:47.149+00:002013-12-29T02:36:47.149+00:00Because there are no smaller social housing option...Because there are no smaller social housing options available. There is a dearth of 2 bedroom flats but virtually no single bedroomed homes available. As it is against the rules to give up a property for a dearer option the private sector is barred from those in social housing who are trapped by the bedroom tax. It is simply a punitive tax on the poor.jimboonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-31334378874180385622013-12-28T20:14:28.001+00:002013-12-28T20:14:28.001+00:00Please explain why it is not fair for someone (suc...Please explain why it is not fair for someone (such as a single person) should not give up their publicly provided good which is too large for them for some else (such as a young couple with children) to move in to. This sounds like a sound and equitable social policy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01876656586539650027noreply@blogger.com