68 1 min 9 yrs

Some on the left suggest that there are but a tiny minority of malingerers on Benefits. Really??

Nearly 900,000 people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their claim to the payments rather than undergo a tough medical test, latest government figures show. The statistics also revealed that some claimants cited conditions such as “blisters”, “sprains and strains” and “acne” as preventing them from having a job.

Need I say more?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

68 thoughts on “ALMOST ONE MILLION SPONGERS…

  1. …..as preventing them from having a job

    With a ratio of 8:1 of unemployed to job vacancies, perhaps someone would be able to state where these jobs are for 900,000 ‘malingerers’?

  2. The immigrants from Poland and the Baltics that work in your hotel and restaurant industry have found an ability to find jobs over the past 15 years, when others said that they could not do so. Why is that?

  3. Phantom,

    They can afford to accept minimum wage as they they also in receipt of family support benefits for families that are still resident in Poland. That is in addition to anything else they can wangle from our generosity.

    One case I am familiar with gets job seeker allowance, while having a part time job, plus family benefits, sent directly to Poland for one assumes, what is a fictitious family as he cohabits with a lady with child here in the UK, who also happens to receive child benefits,

    He was recently heard bosting of the house he is having built in Poland, it certainly sounded better than most being built here at this time.

    Stop EU immigration now, and send aliens back where they came from, – who knows maybe our jobless situation might improve.

    The system works for them, – more fool us for making it so easy.

  4. Holy cow.

    I am all for safety nets – I’ve said so many times here – but I would be merciless in hacking out all fraud and waste.

    And I regard nearly all benefits to recent immigrants as fraud on the face of it, including those in on the asylum rackets.

  5. They can afford to accept minimum wage as they they also in receipt of family support benefits for families that are still resident in Poland. That is in addition to anything else they can wangle from our generosity

    Is that a fact or an assumption based on speculation? I know a number of Poles back in Belfast and a more hard working, honest bunch you couldn’t meet.

  6. Paul,

    That family benefits are sent to families ‘back home’ has long been a bone of contention.

    I quite agree that Poles do have a reputation for good work, – it would be stupid of them to be seen as otherwise, – why upset a boat that floats so well?

    Of course it could also be that having seen the damage caused by communism at first hand, they have learned a lesson.

  7. That family benefits are sent to families ‘back home’ has long been a bone of contention

    A bone of contebtion for whom? As I said, is it a veriable fact or assumptive speculation? I certainly have never heard any of the Poles I know in Belfast speak of such a thing.

    Of course it could also be that having seen the damage caused by communism at first hand, they have learned a lesson

    That may be correct to an extent. I suppose those Pole friends I have would broadly be considered ‘left’ but I have never met a Pole the didn’t detest the Soviet Union.

  8. As I said, is it a veriable fact or assumptive speculation?

    *Verifiable fact.

  9. Paul,

    That family benefits may be paid to any EU migrants working abroad in anothe EU country, is subject to the countries involved, – Poland is one of them.

    ‘You and your family members live in different countries

    If the members of your family do not live in the country where you are insured, your family could be entitled to benefits in more than one country. You will not receive benefits twice: “priority rules” decide which country is responsible for providing them.’

    http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=863

    I hardly think those receiving such benefit woould be likely to boast about it, – although the case I mentioned did!

  10. Ernest

    Slovakia is a full member of the EU, and anyone wanting to claim ‘Benefits’ here can only claim for an absolute maximum of one year, and has to attend a strict interview every three months, once the year is up .. that’s it .. end of

    So much for equality throughout Europe, is it any wonder everyman and his dog makes bee-line for dear old Blighty.

  11. Paul,

    When I first heard of this practice I too couldn’t believe that such crass stupidity existed in any sphere of government, especially when our unemployment levels remain so high.

    However we must remember that the EU is not a democratic instituition, in fact quite the opposite. We might call it a neo-comm outfit – a modern day version of communism where diktat rules the day…

  12. Of course Ernest the operative words in the link you provide are the modal verbs may and could to express possibility.

    Slightly different from the assertion that ‘They can afford to accept minimum wage as they they also in receipt of family support benefits for families that are still resident in Poland’

    The supposed esy availibility of benefits also grates with the story that I have told before on ATW about a friend of mine from Belfast who returned to his native city after seven years in Germany and was told that as he had been away for such a lengthy time he would be treated like any other newly arrived EU state member and would have to wait a year before qualifying for any social security benefits.

  13. Paul,

    So you think our Polish visitors are here to show us how it’s done and not for any thoughts of raiding the orchard with the ripest fruit. Not that I would blame them for that.

    It’s our poliicians stupidity in allowing such practices that riles.

  14. I don’t know Ernest, what I do know is that the assertion regarding the minimum wage because of alleged receipt of benefits for other family residents still living in Poland isn’t as cut and dried as it seems;

    Generally, the country where your family’s right is based on a situation of employment or self-employment is responsible for providing the benefits

    Regardless of which country pays benefits one would assume that this is equivilent to Working Families Tax Credit, (potentially available to all working Britons with children), which kinda negates your ‘they can afford to accept minimum wage because of other benefits’ claim as, presumably, thos in receipt of WFTC could accept the same?

    In short Ernest what I do know is that I find the Poles I know a lot more honest and hard working than some of the ‘natives’ I know. I’m often perplexed at the right wing complaining about economic immigration. Is it not the free market in action and the very epitome of Tebbit’s alleged ‘on your bike’ remarks?

  15. Paul,

    I’m sure Norman never visualised the consequences that overcrowding would bring. It seems we have reached our economic limits, and with the best will in the world, crowding evermore folk into such a resricted space will not solve the problem. We have neither the space nor the resources for any further growth in population nor economic expansion, certainly not if we expect to maintain any reasonable sort of civilised standard of living.

    If you would like a site that compares global population per square km. see the link below:-

    http://www.hivegroup.com/gallery/worldpop/original/

    You will see we are 21st in ranking with some 228 people per sq.km. for comparison China has but 135 per sq.km.

    Some of the stats make for interesting reading, – Russia has but 8 per sq.km while even Pakistan is less crowded than us wih 198 per sq.km. and they are all countries with more resources than we ever dreamed of.

  16. We have neither the space nor the resources for any further growth in population nor economic expansion, certainly not if we expect to maintain any reasonable sort of civilised standard of living.

    But if there are limited resources don’t freemarketeers argue that the market is best positioned for distribution of them?

    Be careful Ernest, you might be accuesd of arguing for restrictions on the market or, worse still, as an eco nut with your stats on global overcrowding.

  17. Authentic humans don’t try to organize society based on what’s best for ” the market ”

    The market is only useful to the extent that it serves the population.

    One factor among many.

  18. “But if there are limited resources don’t freemarketeers argue that the market is best positioned for distribution of them?”

    Not just limited resources, but all resources. The alternative to allocation by price is allocation by politics. The millions of victims of state-imposed famine found out what that means.

  19. Restricting immigration is allocation of residency by politics.

    Rightly so, too.

    There are many other areas including environmental matters, where the market has been completely useless at times.

    There is more to life than money, Mr. Moore.

  20. Restricting immigration is simply the state not artificially inflating the supply of labour.

    Come back when civil society pollutes and destroys the environment anything like government has.

  21. Restricting immigration is simply the state not artificially inflating the supply of labour

    But you’re against interference by the state?

  22. If you all like and appreciate living in a civilised fashion then it essential that overcrowding is avoided, everyone needs space, restrict living space and neighbour will be a war with neighbour, – even rats when living in a constricted space will readily attack each other, and so it is with humans.

    Have you never wondered why the residents of ‘council high rise flats’ are only one step away from becoming feral, and yet when those same flats are reorganised into civilised dwelings they are readily sold for for goodly sums and occupied by bankers and other such ‘city workers’.

    Overcrowding is uncivilsed and but one step from barbarism.

  23. Paul McMahon –

    I am anti-state, certainly, but I’ve said for years in here that defence is one of the very few legitimate functions of the collective. This is in the interests of British liberty and social harmony. Even with “only” a few million immigrants, we’ve seen our liberties severely curtailed as a result.

    So I don’t have to go around this mulberry bush time and again in future, I am in favour of the collective defending British society with extremely robust immigration policies.

  24. Extremely robust immigration policies don’t grow on trees.

    Have fun with explaining your policy on funding them.

    Don’t even try to pretend that it can be done absent significant taxes.

  25. The cost of a robust immigraton policy? Puny, and a massive saving over the costs of no immigration policy.

  26. I agree that it is the best money you can spend, but it is in the many millions in any event, and can only be funded by tax.

    I do believe we’re making some progress with you.

  27. Phantom,

    We already foot that bill, that it failed is down to general incompetence and smug indolence of our civil service.

    That the head of the failed immigration dept during the last decade is now the head of HM Revenue and Custons and Excise, says all you need to know about job irresponsibility, incompetence and general indolence all being so vital to job advancement in modern Britain.

  28. Restricting immigration is simply the state not artificially inflating the supply of labour.
    I am anti-state

    So what’s it gonna be Pete?

    It doesn’t matter what flowery language you dress it up in, you are either a freemarketeer that disagrees with state interference of you’re not. You do realise that the flip side of your argument against the econoomic immigrant of globalisation is that multi nationals etc should also be restricted in market expansion don’t you?

    If you’re going to argue with state interference and restriction on issues that suit you let’s have no more of that libertarian freemarketeer rhetoric please.

    I do believe we’re making some progress with you

    I do believe you may be right Phantom.

  29. Ernest

    Shut down the human rights industry

    Enact draconian fines to anyone who employs or rents to an illegal

    Remove all possibility of any benefits to any illegal

    Enact a 25 year waiting period for any benefits to any legal immigrant

    These modest steps will stop the problem from getting worse. Then you can get serious.

  30. Paul McMahon –

    “It doesn’t matter what flowery language you dress it up in, you are either a freemarketeer that disagrees with state interference of you’re not.”

    I don’t agree with your premise.

    The history of immigration into Britain since WW2 is of the state artificially inflating the supply of labour. There is nothing free market about it.

  31. There was also your precious businessmen looking for cheap labor. As they do here.

    And they can talk ” free market ” in labor all day long.

  32. If there were no borders in the UK or US, the level of immigration would be ten times as high.

    A bum in the gutters of London is a king with riches beyond counting by Pakistani or African standards. The people of the world are aware of this.

  33. Phantom –

    In case it escaped your attention many times, I’m in favour of free markets within which businessmen can take their chances.

    It’s you who is in favour of the many rules by which big business rigs markets against the rest of us.

  34. There are many businessmen who want the cheapest worker available, anywhere. And they don’t want you restricting their ” liberty ” to get that cheap worker and that worker does not want you restricting his ” liberty ” to go there to get work.

    You are on the right side of this one, but your own high handed ” liberty ” arguments can be used against you here, and logically so.

  35. Phantom –

    A businessman is at liberty, in my view, to spend his own capital in employing that cheap worker wherever the cheap worker is.

    He’s not at liberty to lobby the government to loot me to induce the cheap worker, via benefits, to come here here, to the advantage of the businessman. That would be force and fraud against me.

  36. That is also correct. The immigrant impacts society in many ways, possibly good and bad, and all in society should have a say in the matter of immigration.

  37. “I am in favour of the collective defending British society with extremely robust immigration policies.”

    Well apparently the “collective” isn’t interested, or at least not in what you mean by such policies, or indeed in what you mean by British society.

    The policies that exist already are pretty robust anyhow. The stowaways that have been heaved off ships or suffocated in transit are hard to explain otherwise. Shame they didn’t realise they could just waltz over the mythical open borders.

  38. He’s not at liberty to lobby the government to loot me to induce the cheap worker, via benefits, to come here here, to the advantage of the businessman

    Benefits or labour, which is it? I’ve already dealt with Ernest’s claims earlier

    I don’t agree with your premise

    Disagree all you wish Pete it doesn’t detract that you adapt a contrary position on some issues.

  39. Frank O’Dwyer –

    I’m not aware of any immigrants who have been heaved off of ships in the Channel recently. A few have suffocated in transit, but that seems more a matter of financial means and a consequent limited/poor choice of transport rather than British government policy.

  40. Paul,

    If you call your reply @ 8.10pm to my comment as ‘dealing with my claims’, then you really haven’t understood a word of this debate.

    Unlike Pete, I am not a total ‘free market nut’ and I am quite prepared to accept sensible government legislation, implemented for the benefit of the electorate.

    Of course this ‘in our best interests’ approach is unacceptable in this age of global commerce, that leaves us in a vulnerable position and at the mercy of global conglomerates who really couldn’t give a damn if they totally ruin our environment by covering everything in concrete, and virtually enslaving us all with their ‘lowest wage’ ethic.

    That we are in the minority among western civilised nations, in selling off our most vital of items of infrastructure to the highest bidder should surely be a warning that we are treading a very dangeous and greedy path.

    We are at present in the position of being at the mercy of those who have historically and traditionally been our sworn enemies to supply most of our basic infrastructure needs, such as water supply, power, including gas, oil, and nuclear options, and also many other such vital assets. Of course most of our industrial base has long been in foreign control. Thank you Mrs T!

    We are now in a position where an enemy, (the EU possibly), could metaphorically, just flick a switch and wait for us to capitulate, no need for a shot to be fired.

    That is the ultimate result of a totally unresrained ‘free market’, a la Moore.

  41. Ernest Young –

    Do explain something please:

    “We are now in a position where an enemy, (the EU possibly), could metaphorically, just flick a switch and wait for us to capitulate, no need for a shot to be fired. That is the ultimate result of a totally unresrained ‘free market’, a la Moore.”

    So a political institution can switch off our heat and light, you say. How is that anything to do with free markets? It seems to constantly evade people’s attention that, by definition, a free market stance is one which rejects political interference.

  42. Pete Moore,

    ‘ a free market stance is one which rejects political interference.’

    Well Peter, if you really believe that to be true – in the face of regular events that prove otherwise, – then you really are naive.

    You see the ‘free market’ as being totally uncontrolled, despite global conglomerates who are so omnipresent that they have global control of supply and demand, and thus make a mockery of your very old fashioned and simplistic ideas of a free market.

    As strange as it may seem a free market needs a consistent – and viable – trading environment. As we do not have a world government to constrain the most voraciously greedy – such as ‘the Bankers’ – who even you must see as being in every sense of the word – ‘as a law unto themselves’, we will have to tolerate our own government’s hopefully, but rarely, sensible attempts at some form of modest control.

    If you cannot visualise the power that derives from being a major supplier of any vital item of infrastructure, able, with the metaphorical flick of a switch, to immobilise much of the country, well, just imagine if we had been unable to get an emergency supply of gas a few weeks ago, from our foreign suppliers, and at a price, of course. The country would have come to a standstill.

    Imagine a country with no petrol, or no decent water and sewage service, perhaps not quite the instant immobilisation I initially suggested, but a shutdown of the elctricity grid might be a different matter.

    Vital infrastructure should not be ‘up for grabs’ to the highest buyer, to keep control of such things within our borders is surely a basic requirement in the defence of our nation, or perhaps you feel that to should be a free market option.

  43. Ernest

    Spot on

    Just as some make the staggering mistake of thinking that each individual is entirely sovereign, a free atom floating in space, with no obligations to the structured community he is part of, they think that their little Britain, or litlle America, can unilaterally disarm in a world where mega corporations and other countries have strategies that may be good or bad, but are not your own.

    The libertararian trade stance is a nonsense on a hundred levels. They seem to be unaware that world trade is freer than it has ever been. It will never be entirely unrestricted, for reasons even a Ron Paul voter could understand. You don’t want the Chinese building your destroyers, and if you don’t want Putin as a dominant supplier of your energy, that to me is a reponsible position to take.

    You want free-ish trade, but with rules. Yes.

  44. Ernest Young –

    You argue totally for free markets, and then conclude at the end that the state must be in control.

    If you want to see “global conglomerates” reigned in then the very worst way to go about it is by laws and regulations which, as I constantly point out, are most often written to advantage entrenched interests. It’s called regulatory capture, crony capitalism, politics and corruption. Big business is no friend of free markets for good reason: it’s only by the recruitment of state power that GlobalMegaCorp can maintain its position.

    “As strange as it may seem a free market needs a consistent – and viable – trading environment.”

    If I understand you, yes, but have you not noticed the chaos which state distortions always yield? Money, energy, banking – you name it, wherever the state interferes we have no order, no stability and unrelieved corruption.

    “If you cannot visualise the power that derives from being a major supplier of any vital item of infrastructure, able, with the metaphorical flick of a switch, to immobilise much of the country …”

    Why would a commercial supplier tell stop supplying its customers? When did you last see Tesco and Halfords and B&Q lock the doors and flick a “V” sign at its customers, for goodness sake! Governments would do it alright. Governments which bomb freely when it suits them would put you in the dark and let you freeze to death, no problem. Commercial suppliers in a free market – not so.

    “Imagine a country with no petrol …”

    FFS! Parts of the US had no petrol after Sandy, and the state ensured they continued to have bno petrol through its boneheaded price controls which were cheered on by boneheads here. If you have no petrol, suppliers will be fighting to get it to you at a market price. Believe it.

    “Vital infrastructure should not be ‘up for grabs’ to the highest buyer …”

    Don;t be daft, of course it should be. Vital infrastructure, whatever you mean by vital, is far too important to be left to government! If we had National Food Service, where we all got our crap, communist food, you’d be telling me that “food is too important to be up for grabs to the highest buyer.” Yes you would, don’t argue. The idea of private food growers and producers and distributers and retailers would horrify you. You’d be telling me that “millions would be starving in the gutter” if the profit motive was allowed. Well where are they? Millions are browsing the aisles wondering which abundant, astonishingly cheap produce from around the world to drop into their trollies.

    That’s capitalism, that’s free(ish) markets. When they let rip we become much wealthier, very quickly and we all benefit.

  45. Ah.

    So Gazprom should have every right to buy European pipelines and Huawei should have every right to do your MoD infrastructure.

    Well, that’s an interesting philosophy.

    Meanwhile, on planet earth, trade is freer than it has ever been.

  46. If you call your reply @ 8.10pm to my comment as ‘dealing with my claims’, then you really haven’t understood a word of this debate

    I was thinking more of my 7.34 Ernest and it was more in reference to Pete than you. People tend to think that immigrants are entitled to masses of automatic benefits funded by the British taxpayers when they land on the British shores, the link you provide, which I quote from demonstrates the this isn’t necessarily the case.

    Pete is trying to ride two horses with his ‘inducing cheap labour via benefits’ claim.

  47. How much total benefits do recent immigrants collect every year in the UK?

    Anyone know?

  48. Phantom –

    You clutter up these economic discussions like an old pile of junk. Just look at the mess you left with this:

    So Gazprom should have every right to buy European pipelines and Huawei should have every right to do your MoD infrastructure. Well, that’s an interesting philosophy.

    That deserves to be swept aside and skipped.

    So what if Gazprom buys European pipelines? It would be a massive investment into Europe on their part. They’d be bringing money this way for something which is there already. What, you think Gazprom might block the pipelines? Why? How would it earn income in that case? What, maybe the Kremlin would order it? So Gazprom loses its investment and gets kicked out. It ain’t gonna dig them up and take them home to Russia.

    Huawei and MOD contratcs: on what planet are MOD contracts in any way free market? Come on dopey bollocks, plug your brain in. Listen, Huawei is a telecoms firm with extremely close links to the Communist Party. They should be allowed near any British government contracts, but such contracts are, by definition, obciously not a part of the free market economy.

    Go stand outside, you’re just getting in the way.

  49. Pete

    Your arguments are so full of holes and you do get so furious when it is pointed out.

    Some of us think that energy security is important.

    Some of us think that information security is important. Russia and China are engaged in cyber war now, not in the future. This should be part of anyone’s thoughts on whether Huawei should be allowed to bid on any infrastructure projects in a country that does not want to be attacked by the Chinese.

    You have a very bad, anarchic understanding of economics, the curse of the true communist or Paulie who just read a paperback and who now thinks he’s got some inside information.

    Society has rules. This is not a tyranny. And trade is more free than it has every been.

  50. Phantom –

    What planet are you on? Britain is on the verge of blackouts because of government.

    Civil society did not shut down its power plants, civil society did not impose the disastrous Climate Change Act on itself, civil society did not bet the farm on renewables, and civil society did not punitively loot energy users with swingeing taxes.

    I’m sorry, you simply cannot claim to have any concern for energy security while promoting government control of energy.

    As Milton Friedman said, if the government took over the Sahara there’d be a shortage of sand. Always and without exception, wherever government is in control charge we have shortages, inflation and waiting times.

  51. And Phantom, it’s noted that if we struggling on a diet of turnips, spam and black bread provided “free at the point of delivery” from a National Food Service, you would be making these same arguments against private food provision.

    You would say that “food os too important to be left to the free market.”

    You would say that “some of us think that food security is important.”

    You would say that “millions will starve if food depends on the profit motive.”

    Yes you would, you know it, I know it.

  52. I am for the lightest possible effective regulatory hand.

    And food in America is not entirely a free market yet we have the cheapest and best supply on earth.

    The evil govt don’t let you sell tainted food, and in some cases there are unfair trade impediments, such as the one on sugar imports, as supported by the fraud Marco Rubio.

  53. Pete,
    You are right about politicians screwing up our energy supplies, but I think you are wrong about buying in supplies.
    It seems to me that the supplier of energy is always in a stronger position than the buyer. Yes I know that the supplier needs a buyer, but if a conflict breaks out and the buyer has no stockpiled energy, then they are pretty much stuffed.

    I tend to agree with your position on government monopoly, but there are some things that a government does best, such as defence and law and order.

  54. It does a good job at setting minimal rules for food and drugs safety.

    There were many incidents of fatalities caused by bad food before Teddy Roosevelt here pushed for proper standards in meat packing plants / canneries, etc.

    There is plenty of role for proper government oversight in many markets – for consumer products, transport, financial services.

    Pete takes a militant ” let the business world do whatever they like at all times ” and that’s not on. It is at its root a corporatist position, but not an intelligent one, since even corporations and other traders realize that some regulation is good for all, customer and the service or product provider.

  55. I agree Phantom,
    Government should be the arbiter, the final ideally impartial authority. It should encourage commerce and economic growth. |It should ensure that certain standards are met, but its role should be restricted. I think it is because government influence and involvement has over reached sensible limits that we are in the mess we are in.

  56. Agit8ed –

    If a customer has no strategic reserves that’s his bad planning, but it dosn’t speak of the producer/customer relationship.

    How do you stregthen the hand of the customer? You have as many producers as possible. This you’ll get from free markets. Government is the friend of monopolies and oligopolies. To be clear, monopolies and oligopolies can only be sustained by government power.

    America’s greatest economist briefly outlined here how recruiting government power in the service of monopolies in the US is the origin of goverment regs today. It’s only nine minutes. I well recommend it to you.

  57. Agit8ed –

    “Government should encourage commerce and economic growth.”

    I’m sorry, it can’t do that. That’s like saying that King Herod should have encouraged good parenting. Government is force and violence. That’s all it is, it has nothing else. It is destruction of wealth and capital. It cannot possibly encourage wealth formation and investment. Government’s nature cannot possibly be anything but hostile to economic growth.

  58. Pete

    It may be an astounding and confounding thing to realize, but the huge majority in the UK and US and lots of places, wants our respective governments to actively prevent the sale of tainted foods, to prevent fraud by various actors in the market, tec.

    You state this baloney that the government has no role in these things as though it was a self evident truth, but a lot of smart people reject it on its face.

    You may want to consider that one can hold a differing opinion on a subject without being a dupe or a simpleton.

  59. Pete,
    just listened (through gritted teeth) nto your man.
    IMV he has to be one of the worst speakers ever!
    He mentions that the USA went through a period of incredible growth, with increasing production and lowering prices.
    This already is a drawback of Capitalism, assuming as it does the need for more and more resources. Inevitably too prices will rise as raw materials become scarcer and production costs go up.
    He makes the case for government control of industrial cartels, which goes against your anti government stance.
    Human nature is such that ambitious and powerful people will always seek to control whatever it is they are involved in. So actually it is inevitable that there will be these tugs of war between captains of industry and the government and the intellectuals who also try to shape public opinion.

  60. “Government is force and violence. That’s all it is, it has nothing else.”

    This is simply not true Pete or rather, only true of totalitarian states. In a democracy government has as much power as the people are willing to cede it. The problem is that the balance has swung too far in favour of the government, and the people feel impotent, which is why electoral turnout has been so low.
    But the government also knows it cannot govern without the will of the people, and that is why when it realises that a policy is really unpopular it changes the policy.

  61. Agit8ed –

    “He mentions that the USA went through a period of incredible growth, with increasing production and lowering prices. This already is a drawback of Capitalism, assuming as it does the need for more and more resources.”

    What? Capitalism is merely a form of ownership of property. “increased production” means getting more outputs for fewer resources. This is what led to the falls in prices of goods. We see then that capitalism and free markets, via increased productivity, are the environmentally sound ways.

    You disagree? How much money and natural resources and energy go into dozens of filing cabinets full of paper?

    How much goes into a memory stick?

    Case closed.

    “He makes the case for government control of industrial cartels, which goes against your anti government stance.”

    You misunderstood. Murray Rothbard certainly never that case.

    Your 3.56pm is contradictory and all over the shop. Maybe you or Phantom can give me one way in which government can “encourage economic growth” which doesn’t have a cost on someone or which doesn’t resort to force and violence?

  62. Pete,
    we surely agree that in order to make things you need raw materials. Lets say that in order to make cars you need metals, you need presses etc.
    Metal ores are non-replenishible, therefore prices inevitably creep up. Recycled metal costs money to make it reusable. Prices go up.
    What’s to argue about there?

  63. Free trade arrangements enacted with places like Colombia, Korea etc.

    Good for the consumers in all these countries.

    The regulation of stock trading by the FSA and SEC adds a level of confidence that they are legitimate markets and that the numbers are honest.

    I’d never invest in a stock or mutual fund or bank account that wasn’t regulated by a credible actor. Neither would anyone. All parties benefit by such regulation.

    None of the above involve any force or violence.

  64. ps.
    Government is essential, big government is undesirable.It can encourage economic growth through tax breaks, it can look after the rights of workers, it can arbitrate.
    You surely don’t think it was right when the early industrialists paid their workers a pittance or threw them out of tied accommodation?

  65. Phantom –

    Free trade = getting rid of government restrictions to free trade. This is merely correcting an error.

    Stock markets regulated themselves perfectly well before government came in with its dumpy rules. For example, insider trading is not a crime, yet you’ll be punished with violence if you do it (unless you’re a Congressman, in which case you’ll be allowed).

    Agit8ed –

    Government encourages economic growth through tax breaks? In that case so does the mugger and burglar when they take a night off. Looting you for a bit less than usual is not encouraging growth, it merely doing a little less violence on you.

    Early industrialists paid market wages for the time. The millions who left the land for the factories thought it was a good deal. The alternative would have been a minimum wage which would have outlawed the employment of those millions. Minimum wages do not raise wages, they outlaw jobs below a certain level of productivity.

  66. Insider trading absolutely is a crime to me.

    If you want to base a movement on the right to engage in insider trading and price gouging, knock yourself out.

Comments are closed.