Posts Tagged ‘economy’

Housing sell-off

May 28, 2015

Remember nice Mr David Cameron, our wonderful leader, all that time ago, when he stated that social housing should be for those in need.
When he said, that nice, smoochy David Cameron, that when tenants of social housing reached a certain earnings limit, that they would have to move.
The thoughts of David Cameron.
He thought it a good idea to insist that those who could afford it should vacate social housing – that those who had reached a level of wealth that allowed them to, to leave and buy their own home in the private sector.
Well, now, nice, smoochy, gorgeously beautiful David Cameron has had second thoughts.
Maybe someone who is his senior in Government (a Tory Grandee) has decided it would buy the Tories more votes to give-away (sell-off at a huge discount – same thing, basically.) houses in the social sector.
So, to further divide a divided Britain, a second sell-off of homes is to be legislated for.
A shredded Britain will ensure.
A Britain that dangles from the lamp-posts like strips of cheap rag will result.
Everyone is out for themselves.
No one wants to pay for anyone else.
But how long will it be before people realise that everyone pays for everyone else in Capitalism.
We all pay the profits, we all pay the benefits.

Unity and division

June 29, 2013

Commerce and Governments wants us to be individuals, but not to be independent.

As individuals we are alone, but we are not independent.

We can never be independent in today’s world:

Unless we live in a bubble, we need the help of others to, at least, maintain the items we use to progress through our day.

With this hi-tech world we need experts to help us and smooth our path.

But they are ‘them’ and we remain ‘us’.

Our differences are encouraged and promoted.

We are motivated to live for today; live for ourselves.


The idea of equality is advanced by vested interests.

Equality is important. Of course it is.


How can we all be equal when we are not all the same?

How can we have equality when this society is so divided?

How can we be a society when differences are emphasised and exaggerated.

How can we ever pull together when so many sides are facing each other?

How can we ever face a united force with division?

How can we achieve anything if we all argue about our aims?

How can we have a counter-argument if we all say different words?

How can we face the foe if we all face in different directions?

How can we ever succeed if we are fighting one another?

How can we ever be united if we all seek different endings?

How have we reached this low place – we are so divided because our individual rights have consumed our right to be an important part of humanity.

Out individuality is promoted and praised – because as an individual we are weak and easily manipulated.


Unity is strength.
Divided we are weak!

Bedroom Tax BS.

March 12, 2013

Cameron ‘justifies’ this benefit reduction by saying the total spend on housing benefit has to be reduced AND that this move will make the apportioning of housing fair (or fairer) because single people won’t be stranded with excess rooms and families will be given adequate accommodation.

The problem is, however, if, eventually, everyone gets a suitable home with the ‘correct’ number of rooms, no one will pay Bedroom Tax – so no money will be saved at all.

It shows-up the lie that lurks behind Cameron’s smiling words.

It reinforces the idea that the Tories do broadcast untruths.

It adds weight to the theory that all of these benefit changes/cuts/alterations are intended, primarily, to punish the less well-off.

That wonderfully bigoted zealot, Iain Duncan Smith tells us he wishes to free those on welfare from the strangle-hold of poverty- he tells us that universal benefits are part of this attempt. But,really, IDS is trying to make the poor suffer – he is making them destitute to liberate them from the benefit merry-go-round. He is making them poorer to allow them to find dignity.

He is telling porkies in his monotone drawl – but you  cannot question a zealot.


January 28, 2013

Robots will steal your job

Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon Are Worth $1 Trillion, but Only Create 150,000 Jobs

It’s Time to Reassess the Future of Work. Look. Robots are displacing human workers around the globe, and even the world’s biggest tech companies aren’t creating enough other jobs to even the scales.

Below, 60 Minutes rounds up some of the most high profile examples of robo-labor edging out the human variety: Sorting robots, manufacturing robots, stock-trading robots, oh my. Robots doing the jobs humans once did; each eliminating employment opportunities. And some of these robots are actually already cheaper than Chinese laborers. So even workers in developing countries will be fighting over robots for jobs.

The service industry isn’t safe either—there are already waitstaff-free restaurants. What’s more, the information technology sector, that great hope for future job creation, isn’t making up the difference. Not even close.

The bluntest way this is framed comes at the end of the piece: Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook combined account for over $1 trillion dollars of market capitalization. Yet they only employ around 150,000 people total. That’s less than half the number of people who work for GE. And it’s roughly the number of people that enter the U.S. job market every month. In other words, it’s a farce to believe that tech giants, internet startups, and app developers will ever be able to employ the same number of people that manufacturing once did.

The world is fundamentally changing; the economic assumptions that currently gird our society will be meaningless in as soon as a few decades. And we’d better get ready to prepare for that shift—if we don’t adjust the current socio-economic structure, we’re going to have mass joblessness, and society-wide chaos. We’re going to need to fundamentally reform not just our policies but our attitudes towards work. We’re going to need to re-engineer the social safety net from the ground up to account for the fact that robots are taking over on the labor front.

What’s the point of building society around a 40-hour work week, after all, when robots are doing all the heavy lifting?

We have a couple options to consider: the wisest would be to aim for something like a guaranteed minimum income. When robots are doing our work, everyone should benefit, and no one should be left out cold. Under the current trajectory, only those who own the robots will benefit from the rise of automation. The rich will get richer, the masses will get jobless. And restless.

Since there simply won’t be enough job slots for the entire population, we’re going to have to account for the shortfall, and recognize that work, as we currently conceive it, will no longer be the average person’s principal contribution to society. If we’re intent on maintaining a capitalist economy, there’s going to have to be a basic allowance allotted to citizens that’s untethered to the labor market—because pretty soon, the numbers just won’t add up. There won’t be any realistic route to full employment when robots become cheap, efficient, and flexible enough.

So we should probably look to providing all citizens a flat salary per annum. Tax the robot owners to do it; they’ll be richer than God soon anyway. Or, as Yglesias suggests, we could

abolish private property in ideas and natural resources. Then by taxing pollution, land, congestion, and other externalities we have adequate revenue to provide a decent social minimum for all at which point people do what they like. Some people’s hobbies will align reasonably well with some kind of labor market opportunity whereas others won’t, but society won’t be organized around a “work hard or else you’ll starve and be homeless” model because there will not objectively be a shortfall of food and houses or much of anything else.

Or we’ve got to drastically expand and streamline unemployment benefits, and de-stigmatize unemployment.

Good thing, then, that this specter comes looming at a moment of unprecedented Congressional paralysis. Unlike coping with global climate change or immigration, we do have a few years to get these kind of reforms underway—but I’m willing to take odds that we’re not going to be ready anytime soon nonetheless, seeing as how everything I’ve just suggested would instantly make any Tea Partier’s head explode.

It is possible that the rise of the robot workforce could end up being a major boon to society—we just need to calibrate our assumptions and policies to allow it to be. With some luck and progressivity, we may yet be able to fashion some slender variant of those work-free techno-utopias dreamed up in the past. Or, of course, we could plunge into a dystopic, inequality-ravaged hell-hole where a few titans of industry reap the profits of robot labor while the rest of us hopelessly slum it up in a cyberpunk-esque future. It’s our call.


Hednesford in the rain.

October 27, 2012

It’s a place to keep away from
Just an ordinary small town.
Long time since they used to stable race-horses in the vicinity.
Mines abounded around there.
Soon, it’ll have a modern Tesco Superstore thrust into the innards of its tiny local economy.
Hednesford town-centre will bleed to death.
Slowly it will haemorrhage its life into the bright white and red and blue of Tesco and its special-offers and highly-piled shelves of tinned goods and jars or ready made sauces.
The local baker will eventually give up and close down.
The wasps won’t be investigating the cream-cakes – there’ll be no cream-cakes to investigate – and the crumbs in the window will be like pebbles in their absolute staleness.
Tesco will win the price wars.
Tesco will win the promotions battles – BOGOFF – buy-one-get-one-for-free – will be their battle cry.
Tesco will win.
The local Co-op will capitulate and move to somewhere less competitive to charge their exorbitant prices.
Tesco will win – it’s bigger; more capitalistic.
It will under-cut its rivals.
It will close down the small shops.
It will decimate the shopping town – there is already a Tesco Superstore only a couple of miles way.
Tesco will saturate the area.

Apathy now an expression of belief?

October 21, 2012

Ian Warwick Blair, Baron Blair of Boughton, QPM, the retired British policeman who held the position of commissioner of police of the metropolis, now tells us not to vote in the forthcoming elections for Police Commissioners in England.

He doesn’t seem to think that the elections are for a properly thought-through or competent position.

This knight of the realm has some experience of such jungles – maybe we should listen to him and not vote……………

Police commissioner?

October 12, 2012

So the Ads tell us to be sure to vote for our new Police chief, our Commissioner of Police (sounds a hell of a lot like Bruce Wayne.s Batman adventures) so we can become involved and choose which crimes should get priority for investigation.
Maybe they mean which crimes should get investigated at all.
Maybe they mean the Commissioner of Police could decide which sectors of Society should have their crimes investigated.
The bigger the home – the more cars on the drive – the more priority is should have on the “crime-scale”.
For God’s sakes, shouldn’t every crime be investigated?
Should we be able to vote as to if we can drive our cars over the speed limit?
Should mugging only be investigated if the victim wears leather shoes?
Should a burglary only be investigate if it is committed on a house that is owner-occupied? – let’s not bother on Council estates…
Is that what they are trying to tell us?
Are they trying to divide this society even more into, not just the haves-and-have-nots, but the ‘those worthy of help and the undeserving’???????

New Advice for burglars

October 10, 2012

Following the Tory party conference, the Health and Safety Executive are issuing new advice for burglars.

It now recommends that they wear Stab-vests on all of their visits to premises………….