Discussion:
"Creatives", eh?
(too old to reply)
JNugent
2024-03-18 11:04:44 UTC
Permalink
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/16/creatives-leaving-london-and-for-the-first-time-i-understand-why>

[within an article by one Barbara Ellen, complaining about "creatives"
[sic] moving out of, or not moving to, London, in favour of Glasgow and
other provincial metro areas]

QUOTE:
"In my youth, it was entirely possible to live in London rent-free.
Alternative types often didn’t even consider renting. It was: break in,
move in, no biggie. Then, there was the vibrant dole culture (sometimes
dubbed the dole-ocracy) of 70s/80s/90s renown. Look at any list of
artists from these eras, and chances are they spent a considerable
period signing on and/or living in squats..."
ENDQUOTE

So the Golden Age for entitled "creatives" revolved around the enabling
actions of breaking and entering and illegal occupation of the property
of others *and* fraudulent extraction of taxpayers' money?

It is comforting to be assured that those are apparently no longer the
reliable sources of support that they allegedly once were. To
paraphrase, when one is used to leading a life of crime at the expense
of others, enforcement of the law may well feel like oppression.

"...break[ing] in..."

"...the vibrant dole culture..."?

Are words enough to express visceral opposition to the self-defined
elite status of such people ?
Farmer Giles
2024-03-18 21:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/16/creatives-leaving-london-and-for-the-first-time-i-understand-why>
[within an article by one Barbara Ellen, complaining about "creatives"
[sic] moving out of, or not moving to, London, in favour of Glasgow and
other provincial metro areas]
"In my youth, it was entirely possible to live in London rent-free.
Alternative types often didn’t even consider renting. It was: break in,
move in, no biggie. Then, there was the vibrant dole culture (sometimes
dubbed the dole-ocracy) of 70s/80s/90s renown. Look at any list of
artists from these eras, and chances are they spent a considerable
period signing on and/or living in squats..."
ENDQUOTE
So the Golden Age for entitled "creatives" revolved around the enabling
actions of breaking and entering and illegal occupation of the property
of others *and* fraudulent extraction of taxpayers' money?
It is comforting to be assured that those are apparently no longer the
reliable sources of support that they allegedly once were. To
paraphrase, when one is used to leading a life of crime at the expense
of others, enforcement of the law may well feel like oppression.
"...break[ing] in..."
"...the vibrant dole culture..."?
Are words enough to express visceral opposition to the self-defined
elite status of such people ?
There are many useless people in this world, and not all of them living
on the dole.

We could include those who spend their entire lives faithfully doing
jobs which have little or no intrinsic value. For example, those who sit
in offices moving the 'cowrie shells' about. Probably even bigger
parasites than the ones who get a meagre income from the Jobcentre.

Plus they're usually the sort who get morally superior about it all.
Zaius
2024-03-19 10:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/16/creatives-leaving-london-and-for-the-first-time-i-understand-why>
[within an article by one Barbara Ellen, complaining about "creatives"
[sic] moving out of, or not moving to, London, in favour of Glasgow
and other provincial metro areas]
"In my youth, it was entirely possible to live in London rent-free.
Alternative types often didn’t even consider renting. It was: break
in, move in, no biggie. Then, there was the vibrant dole culture
(sometimes dubbed the dole-ocracy) of 70s/80s/90s renown. Look at any
list of artists from these eras, and chances are they spent a
considerable period signing on and/or living in squats..."
ENDQUOTE
So the Golden Age for entitled "creatives" revolved around the
enabling actions of breaking and entering and illegal occupation of
the property of others *and* fraudulent extraction of taxpayers' money?
It is comforting to be assured that those are apparently no longer the
reliable sources of support that they allegedly once were. To
paraphrase, when one is used to leading a life of crime at the expense
of others, enforcement of the law may well feel like oppression.
"...break[ing] in..."
"...the vibrant dole culture..."?
Are words enough to express visceral opposition to the self-defined
elite status of such people ?
There are many useless people in this world, and not all of them living
on the dole.
We could include those who spend their entire lives faithfully doing
jobs which have little or no intrinsic value. For example, those who sit
in offices moving the 'cowrie shells' about. Probably even bigger
parasites than the ones who get a meagre income from the Jobcentre.
Plus they're usually the sort who get morally superior about it all.
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I did
was worse than useless, damaging.

It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number of
highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to stupid
financial innovations, mainly gambling.

You then look at things like the NHS, medical software, and it is
utterly shit. Just a few of the huge number of people who work in the
city could have developed brilliant systems for the NHS, and there is no
doubt a number of other suitable tasks exist.
JNugent
2024-03-19 12:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/16/creatives-leaving-london-and-for-the-first-time-i-understand-why>
[within an article by one Barbara Ellen, complaining about
"creatives" [sic] moving out of, or not moving to, London, in favour
of Glasgow and other provincial metro areas]
"In my youth, it was entirely possible to live in London rent-free.
Alternative types often didn’t even consider renting. It was: break
in, move in, no biggie. Then, there was the vibrant dole culture
(sometimes dubbed the dole-ocracy) of 70s/80s/90s renown. Look at any
list of artists from these eras, and chances are they spent a
considerable period signing on and/or living in squats..."
ENDQUOTE
So the Golden Age for entitled "creatives" revolved around the
enabling actions of breaking and entering and illegal occupation of
the property of others *and* fraudulent extraction of taxpayers' money?
It is comforting to be assured that those are apparently no longer
the reliable sources of support that they allegedly once were. To
paraphrase, when one is used to leading a life of crime at the
expense of others, enforcement of the law may well feel like oppression.
"...break[ing] in..."
"...the vibrant dole culture..."?
Are words enough to express visceral opposition to the self-defined
elite status of such people ?
There are many useless people in this world, and not all of them
living on the dole.
So what?
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
We could include those who spend their entire lives faithfully doing
jobs which have little or no intrinsic value. For example, those who
sit in offices moving the 'cowrie shells' about. Probably even bigger
parasites than the ones who get a meagre income from the Jobcentre.
See below.
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
Plus they're usually the sort who get morally superior about it all.
Those who get up in the morning to go to work - especially those who
daily endure the obstacle course between their homes and Central London
- are entitled to feel superior to those who unilaterally decide to live
off the efforts of others (breaking, entering and occupying premises and
awarding themselves benefits out of others' pockets) are entitled to
feel superior. That's only because their behaviour is superior, though.

Anyone is entitled to pursue their dreams. But not at the unwarranted
expense of other people.
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I did
was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?

Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.

Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not yours)
which is relevant there?
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number of
highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to stupid
financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could have
gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and objectives
more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
Post by Zaius
You then look at things like the NHS, medical software, and it is
utterly shit.
Just a few of the huge number of people who work in the
city could have developed brilliant systems for the NHS, and there is no
doubt a number of other suitable tasks exist.
Out of interest, why didn't you take your ideas to the NHS?

Or perhaps British-born software developers should be subject to
conscription and directives?
Zaius
2024-03-19 14:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I
did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was wrong
with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not yours)
which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did not
make the world a better place.

It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to contribute to
society, make the world a better place for all. The capitalist system is
deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number of
highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to stupid
financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could have
gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and objectives
more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
You then look at things like the NHS, medical software, and it is
utterly shit.
Just a few of the huge number of people who work in the city could
have developed brilliant systems for the NHS, and there is no doubt a
number of other suitable tasks exist.
Out of interest, why didn't you take your ideas to the NHS?
Or perhaps British-born software developers should be subject to
conscription and directives?
Working for a bank was easy, good money, interesting work. My skill set
is software, problem-solving. I have poor people skills, poor management
skills. I never looked, but I'm almost certain the NHS would have paid
me very poorly. The people who make money from the NHS are those with
political/people skills. There isn't the same incentive to develop good
systems.

FWIW, I hadn't meant to post from this account. Eternal-September wasn't
working, so I tried Solani, up until now I assumed it didn't work.
Apparently it does.
Farmer Giles
2024-03-19 14:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I
did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was wrong
with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did not
make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to contribute to
society, make the world a better place for all. The capitalist system is
deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number of
highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to stupid
financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could
have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and
objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
You then look at things like the NHS, medical software, and it is
utterly shit.
Just a few of the huge number of people who work in the city could
have developed brilliant systems for the NHS, and there is no doubt a
number of other suitable tasks exist.
Out of interest, why didn't you take your ideas to the NHS?
Or perhaps British-born software developers should be subject to
conscription and directives?
Working for a bank was easy, good money, interesting work. My skill set
is software, problem-solving. I have poor people skills, poor management
skills. I never looked, but I'm almost certain the NHS would have paid
me very poorly. The people who make money from the NHS are those with
political/people skills. There isn't the same incentive to develop good
systems.
FWIW, I hadn't meant to post from this account. Eternal-September wasn't
working, so I tried Solani, up until now I assumed it didn't work.
Apparently it does.
JNugent
2024-03-19 15:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I
did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was
wrong with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did
not make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to contribute
to society, make the world a better place for all. The capitalist
system is deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number of
highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to stupid
financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could
have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and
objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Lenin and Stalin (let alone Mao and Pol Pot) would have insisted that
their actions "benefited society".

They and others must have believed that.

In any case, "benefiting society" is indefinable.

You can't do it. You can only hope to benefit individuals.
Farmer Giles
2024-03-19 15:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work
I did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was
wrong with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did
not make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to contribute
to society, make the world a better place for all. The capitalist
system is deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number
of highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to
stupid financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could
have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and
objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Lenin and Stalin (let alone Mao and Pol Pot) would have insisted that
their actions "benefited society".
They and others must have believed that.
In any case, "benefiting society" is indefinable.
You can't do it. You can only hope to benefit individuals.
Oh dear. You're clearly beyond help.
JNugent
2024-03-19 17:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work
I did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was
wrong with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did
not make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to contribute
to society, make the world a better place for all. The capitalist
system is deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number
of highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to
stupid financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could
have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and
objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Lenin and Stalin (let alone Mao and Pol Pot) would have insisted that
their actions "benefited society".
They and others must have believed that.
In any case, "benefiting society" is indefinable.
You can't do it. You can only hope to benefit individuals.
Oh dear. You're clearly beyond help.
So you can't define "benefiting society".

That's alright. I knew you wouldn't be able to. No-one can, except by
dint of expressing their preferences for the way that society should
be... er... "organised".
Farmer Giles
2024-03-19 20:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the
work I did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was
wrong with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did
not make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to
contribute to society, make the world a better place for all. The
capitalist system is deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number
of highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to
stupid financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could
have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and
objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Lenin and Stalin (let alone Mao and Pol Pot) would have insisted that
their actions "benefited society".
They and others must have believed that.
In any case, "benefiting society" is indefinable.
You can't do it. You can only hope to benefit individuals.
Oh dear. You're clearly beyond help.
So you can't define "benefiting society".
Have I been asked to?

Actually it's quite simple. An activity that benefits society is one
that produces an outcome or a product that leads to an overall
improvement in the quality of life of the nation in general. Farming,
fishing, manufacturing, the maintenance of law and order, etc, etc.

We can add to that people who give up their time freely to carry out
charitable works, or do volunteering to restore things like canals or
countryside paths and walks - mountain rescue, etc. Those that tell us
the truth about the lies and misdeeds of governments and politicians
also provide a great service to society as a whole. What we can't
include are those who take out a disproportionate amount of wealth but
whose activities provide little or nothing of value in return.


The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's very
likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society' anyway.
Post by JNugent
That's alright. I knew you wouldn't be able to. No-one can, except by
dint of expressing their preferences for the way that society should
be... er... "organised".
JNugent
2024-03-20 15:28:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the
work I did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was
wrong with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We
did not make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to
contribute to society, make the world a better place for all. The
capitalist system is deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge
number of highly qualified and talented people devoting
themselves to stupid financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You
could have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims
and objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find
one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Lenin and Stalin (let alone Mao and Pol Pot) would have insisted
that their actions "benefited society".
They and others must have believed that.
In any case, "benefiting society" is indefinable.
You can't do it. You can only hope to benefit individuals.
Oh dear. You're clearly beyond help.
So you can't define "benefiting society".
Have I been asked to?
You were responding to an assertion that benefits to society are only
definable as benefits to individuals.
Post by Farmer Giles
Actually it's quite simple. An activity that benefits society is one
that produces an outcome or a product that leads to an overall
improvement in the quality of life of the nation in general.
Even if it reduces the quality of life of some?

Who does the analysis?
Post by Farmer Giles
Farming,
fishing, manufacturing, the maintenance of law and order, etc, etc.
We can add to that people who give up their time freely to carry out
charitable works, or do volunteering to restore things like canals or
countryside paths and walks - mountain rescue, etc. Those that tell us
the truth about the lies and misdeeds of governments and politicians
also provide a great service to society as a whole. What we can't
include are those who take out a disproportionate amount of wealth but
whose activities provide little or nothing of value in return.
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's very
likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society' anyway.
Post by JNugent
That's alright. I knew you wouldn't be able to. No-one can, except by
dint of expressing their preferences for the way that society should
be... er... "organised".
And thank you for further expressing your beliefs as to how society
should be "organised", even if it does imply and require that the
beliefs of others on the subject should/must be disregarded.
Farmer Giles
2024-03-20 20:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the
work I did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what
was wrong with what I did?
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and
not yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We
did not make the world a better place.
A rare bit of honesty.
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to
contribute to society, make the world a better place for all. The
capitalist system is deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge
number of highly qualified and talented people devoting
themselves to stupid financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You
could have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose
aims and objectives more closely matched your own. If you could
find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
Don't confuse him with facts.
Lenin and Stalin (let alone Mao and Pol Pot) would have insisted
that their actions "benefited society".
They and others must have believed that.
In any case, "benefiting society" is indefinable.
You can't do it. You can only hope to benefit individuals.
Oh dear. You're clearly beyond help.
So you can't define "benefiting society".
Have I been asked to?
You were responding to an assertion that benefits to society are only
definable as benefits to individuals.
I responded by dismissing your opinion for the nonsense it was.

I didn't consider it was worth any more than that. But, since you came
out with another daft assertion, I gave you my definition.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Actually it's quite simple. An activity that benefits society is one
that produces an outcome or a product that leads to an overall
improvement in the quality of life of the nation in general.
Even if it reduces the quality of life of some?
Which bit of 'in general' didn't you understand?
Post by JNugent
Who does the analysis?
Someone with a bit of common sense, which rules you out.
Post by JNugent
Post by Farmer Giles
Farming, fishing, manufacturing, the maintenance of law and order,
etc, etc.
We can add to that people who give up their time freely to carry out
charitable works, or do volunteering to restore things like canals or
countryside paths and walks - mountain rescue, etc. Those that tell us
the truth about the lies and misdeeds of governments and politicians
also provide a great service to society as a whole. What we can't
include are those who take out a disproportionate amount of wealth but
whose activities provide little or nothing of value in return.
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's
very likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society'
anyway.
Post by JNugent
That's alright. I knew you wouldn't be able to. No-one can, except by
dint of expressing their preferences for the way that society should
be... er... "organised".
And thank you for further expressing your beliefs as to how society
should be "organised", even if it does imply and require that the
beliefs of others on the subject should/must be disregarded.
How and where did I express a belief of how society should be organised
- and where did I 'imply and require that the beliefs of others on the
subject should/must be disregarded'?

All of the things I listed above are examples of activities that are
beneficial to society if done properly. Of course, all of them can be a
disbenefit - even harmful - if done recklessly and with a selfish
disregard for the rules and the effect on others.
Zaius
2024-03-21 15:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's very
likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society' anyway.
I think that hits the nail on the head. He doesn't understand society.

The trouble with Thatcherism was that it coincided with the information
technology revolution. There were advantaged to innovation flexibility
at that point, but much of the increase in the standard of living was
due to technology, not politics.

We now have the problems of the politics, wealth inequality, unbalanced
economy. The established industries have entrenched themselves, the
flexibility is gone.

We need a different revolution, disruptive political model, this time.

“Greed is good”, won't do it.
Farmer Giles
2024-03-21 19:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's
very likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society'
anyway.
I think that hits the nail on the head. He doesn't understand society.
He doesn't understand a lot of things.
Post by Zaius
The trouble with Thatcherism was that it coincided with the information
technology revolution. There were advantaged to innovation flexibility
at that point, but much of the increase in the standard of living was
due to technology, not politics.
The trouble with Thatcherism is that it was a disaster. A disaster for
the many, although certain sections did very well.

Any increase in the standard of living, which happened largely in the
south of England, was largely down to North Sea Oil and selling off the
'family silver'.

The casino in the City boomed while British industry was destroyed.
Post by Zaius
We now have the problems of the politics, wealth inequality, unbalanced
economy. The established industries have entrenched themselves, the
flexibility is gone.
We need a different revolution, disruptive political model, this time.
“Greed is good”, won't do it.
No it certainly won't. We need to clear the lot of them out - and make
use of a few lamp posts while we're at it.
abelard
2024-03-22 14:33:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:59:43 +0000, Zaius
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's very
likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society' anyway.
I think that hits the nail on the head. He doesn't understand society.
The trouble with Thatcherism was that it coincided with the information
technology revolution. There were advantaged to innovation flexibility
at that point, but much of the increase in the standard of living was
due to technology, not politics.
We now have the problems of the politics, wealth inequality, unbalanced
economy. The established industries have entrenched themselves, the
flexibility is gone.
We need a different revolution, disruptive political model, this time.
“Greed is good”, won't do it.
and then there is what she actuallt said

“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been
given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's
job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m
homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem
on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There
are individual men and women, and there are families. And no
government can do anything except through people, and people must look
to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then,
also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as
entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

of course as a socialist you cannot be expected to report truthfully
JNugent
2024-03-22 14:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:59:43 +0000, Zaius
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's very
likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society' anyway.
I think that hits the nail on the head. He doesn't understand society.
The trouble with Thatcherism was that it coincided with the information
technology revolution. There were advantaged to innovation flexibility
at that point, but much of the increase in the standard of living was
due to technology, not politics.
We now have the problems of the politics, wealth inequality, unbalanced
economy. The established industries have entrenched themselves, the
flexibility is gone.
We need a different revolution, disruptive political model, this time.
“Greed is good”, won't do it.
and then there is what she actuallt said
“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been
given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's
job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m
homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem
on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There
are individual men and women, and there are families. And no
government can do anything except through people, and people must look
to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then,
also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as
entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”
of course as a socialist you cannot be expected to report truthfully
This is all very amply demonstrated by the current slew of "stories" in
the liberal/left meeja about how people can't afford to eat (allegedly).

The reports never explain what is being prioritised over the purchase of
food. There is an occasional" We have to run the heating all day and all
night because...".

If answered honestly, the information in many cases would be that other
expenditure is being seen as of higher priority (though what can *be* a
higher priority than feeding oneself and one's dependants is hard to see).

Examples would be the obvious ones - TV subscriptions, mobile phone subs
and repayments, car running costs, alcohol and (supremely) tobacco (a
typical habit is now running at the best part of £100 a week, I understand).

Not everyone has all of those, but most people have at least one. None
of them are of greater priority than foodstuffs, but "The government
should give me more money for Disney+ and cigarettes" doesn't make for
the same effect in the story.
Farmer Giles
2024-03-22 15:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:59:43 +0000, Zaius
Post by Zaius
Post by Farmer Giles
The list of things that benefit society is enormous. Although it's very
likely that you believe that 'there is no such thing as society' anyway.
I think that hits the nail on the head. He doesn't understand society.
The trouble with Thatcherism was that it coincided with the information
technology revolution. There were advantaged to innovation flexibility
at that point, but much of the increase in the standard of living was
due to technology, not politics.
We now have the problems of the politics, wealth inequality, unbalanced
economy. The established industries have entrenched themselves, the
flexibility is gone.
We need a different revolution, disruptive political model, this time.
“Greed is good”, won't do it.
and then there is what she actuallt said
“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been
given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's
job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m
homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem
on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There
are individual men and women, and there are families. And no
government can do anything except through people, and people must look
to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then,
also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too
much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as
entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”
She was quick enough to call on the selfless collective 'national'
spirit of those who went down to the Falklands to save her political
skin. Up until then she had been the most unpopular PM since WWII.
Post by abelard
of course as a socialist you cannot be expected to report truthfully
As a congenital liar we expect nothing worthwhile from you.


Good to see you teaming up with you fellow thicko Nugent - two cheeks of
the same shitty backside. I wouldn't be surprised that you have a common
ancestry.

Have either of you learnt how money is created yet?
JNugent
2024-03-19 15:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I
did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was wrong
with what I did?
Not unless you wish to.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that others will just accept your
word for your having caused Brown's Crash! ;-)
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Someone paid you to do it; probably a lot more more than average earnings.
Surely it is their judgment as to the value of your work (and not
yours) which is relevant there?
I did it to enrich myself, they did it to enrich themselves. We did not
make the world a better place.
That's an odd assessment of the outcome. It was better for you and
better for them. Should they have paid you to make it worse for them
(let alone worse for you)?
Post by Zaius
It would be best if people were rewarded, incentivised to contribute to
society, make the world a better place for all. The capitalist system is
deeply flawed in achieving that goal.
Oh... dear...

The First World has the highest living standards in the world (and is
besieged on every front by Third Worlders trying to gain access by hook
or by crook) and it's is "deeply flawed"?
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
It was really sad, you would sit at work looking at a huge number of
highly qualified and talented people devoting themselves to stupid
financial innovations, mainly gambling.
You weren't conscripted. You were free not to take part. You could
have gone somewhere else to work for an employer whose aims and
objectives more closely matched your own. If you could find one, that is.
We are talking about benefit to society, not benefit to myself.
That's right, except that you chose to benefit ("enrich") yourself. And
there's nothing wrong with that.
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
You then look at things like the NHS, medical software, and it is
utterly shit.
Just a few of the huge number of people who work in the city could
have developed brilliant systems for the NHS, and there is no doubt a
number of other suitable tasks exist.
Out of interest, why didn't you take your ideas to the NHS?
Or perhaps British-born software developers should be subject to
conscription and directives?
Working for a bank was easy, good money, interesting work. My skill set
is software, problem-solving. I have poor people skills, poor management
skills. I never looked, but I'm almost certain the NHS would have paid
me very poorly. The people who make money from the NHS are those with
political/people skills. There isn't the same incentive to develop good
systems.
An excellent summary, I suspect.
Post by Zaius
FWIW, I hadn't meant to post from this account. Eternal-September wasn't
working, so I tried Solani, up until now I assumed it didn't work.
Apparently it does.
???
abelard
2024-03-19 18:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I
did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was wrong
with what I did?
Not unless you wish to.
But don't make the mistake of assuming that others will just accept your
word for your having caused Brown's Crash! ;-)
surely the brown bliar crash was caused by truss
JNugent
2024-03-19 19:32:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
Post by JNugent
Post by Zaius
I worked for banks, financial software. In many instances the work I
did was worse than useless, damaging.
How do you judge that?
2008 Financial crisis etc, do I really need me to explain what was wrong
with what I did?
Not unless you wish to.
But don't make the mistake of assuming that others will just accept your
word for your having caused Brown's Crash! ;-)
surely the brown bliar crash was caused by truss
That's the way the Guardian likes to report it!
D. Ray
2024-04-13 18:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/16/creatives-leaving-london-and-for-the-first-time-i-understand-why>
[within an article by one Barbara Ellen, complaining about "creatives"
[sic] moving out of, or not moving to, London, in favour of Glasgow and
other provincial metro areas]
"In my youth, it was entirely possible to live in London rent-free.
Alternative types often didn’t even consider renting. It was: break in,
move in, no biggie. Then, there was the vibrant dole culture (sometimes
dubbed the dole-ocracy) of 70s/80s/90s renown. Look at any list of
artists from these eras, and chances are they spent a considerable
period signing on and/or living in squats..."
ENDQUOTE
So the Golden Age for entitled "creatives" revolved around the enabling
actions of breaking and entering and illegal occupation of the property
of others *and* fraudulent extraction of taxpayers' money?
The more interesting question is why exactly society is not able to absorb
the costs of “creatives” anymore?

It is obvious that they were able to do it (for decades!) because of
nation’s wealth. The fact that they can’t anymore is not a sign of
“enforcement of the law”, it’s a sign of declining wealth.

Loading...