LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe information is freely available on the net. It's not my fault you don't have the ability to research. I quite like the idea that you continue to argue in ignorance.Originally Posted by Willzzz
The information is freely available on the net. It's not my fault you don't have the ability to research. I quite like the idea that you continue to argue in ignorance.
It's a large field, I have very little idea which particular aspect you are trying to get at.
The thing is that the motivations of the rich and successful tend to be different. It's not about survival or food, it's about challenge and competition and breaking boundaries.
Well, George Osborne gave the challenge to the private sector to create the jobs as he slashed the number public sector jobs at the start of his term. They failed to rise up to the challenge, austerity has now been proven that it doesn't work and the Tories couldn't grow a cucumber much less the economy.
Erm wait, how did the Tories come into this? I thought we were discussing whether the rich care about working and earning money?
You just keep changing the topic..
Try vagueschoolboysocialistfluff.com. I think that is the core body of work in this field of research.
Sorry, I assume you had at least a basic understanding of economics in a political context.
Me?
Well if we must go down this route..
589,000 public sector jobs lost
2 million private sector jobs gained
Sounds good to me.
Back on topic now?
The idea about a dinner lady investing in stocks and shares in order to reduce the wealth gap cracks me up. Basically, the stocks and shares market is nothing more than zero sum game when someone gains and someone else loses.
No, the total value of the stock market changes daily, and over a long period, invariably the value will rise.
That's assuming if you invest in the right stock.
Someone who used an ETF to track the FTSE100 in 2000 would still be looking at zero to minus gains today.
Over a long enough period of time it will almost certainly rise.
However I would agree that the volatility does make it unsuitable for a typical dinner lady.
Do you really believe that Tory spin, Willzzz? Those figures are nothing more than reclassification of jobs by the ONS and inclusion of workfare jobs where workers work for nothing. Hardly news for rejoice.
Has the coalition really created one million private sector jobs?
Which is why they'll be sitting on it for 20 or more years. Or selling the next second. It isn't easy. Meanwhile almost all of the 1 percent of wealth socialists get hot and bothered about are tied up in businesses funded by these investments, as are your pension.
Also, while i'm not denying there are high risks, it simply isn't a zero sum game as you said. In no respect whatsoever is it based on a fixed amount of 'stuff'. That is the fundamental flaw in the logic of socialists who see the money tied up as somehow preventing millions of bowls of rice appearing to feed the poor in Africa.
Yeah so some jobs have been reclassified, but so what? The total number in employment has still risen, the total number unemployed has fallen.
Does this mean you are taking back your comment about public sector being 'slashed'?
As you just said they haven't been slashed, merely moved into the private sector.
A small number may have been lost, but nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Obviously the Guardian article has gone over your head. Swoosh...
Again, you just resort to cheap insults.
Are you denying anything I said? That total employment has risen and total unemployment has fallen since the coalition came to power?
What else do you want me to comment on regarding the Guardian article?
Their silly assertion that Labour saw just as many private sector jobs created? Except that was over 10 years instead of 2 and mostly during the boom times.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote