PM: Ed Miliband has a 'sneering hatred of business'

David Cameron tells The Telegraph that Ed Miliband is a "clear and present threat" to families and could cost Britain 100,000 jobs, as former Labour donors criticise the party's economic policies.

Brasidas wrote:Hatred of the poor?
Now you really are talking bullshit

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Hatred of the poor?
Now you really are talking bullshit

nope it drips from the slack jowels of every tory lacky.....

hatred and contempt in shed loads......

you have done a good job of demonstarting exactly that tonite across a number of threads

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

nope it drips from the slack jowels of every tory lacky.....

hatred and contempt in shed loads......

you have done a good job of demonstarting exactly that tonite across a number of threads

Utter bullshit and you are just proving how much ore you are a left wing drone
ner...i hate the left as enthusiastically as the right as I said ...one as bad as the othere and both utterly clueless.....
What evidence do you?
Errrrr none

Raggamuffin wrote:I do think there are some services which should not be privatised, but without business, and without people who prepared to risk failure in order to create business, this country would be down the pan.

Raggamuffin wrote:Do people think that the big chain stores suddenly came out of nowhere? Do they think that people were born knowing how to run a business? Do they think that those who start up businesses don't have sleepless nights when things don't go so well?

There are many people who wouldn't know where to start, and wouldn't want the responsibility. Those are the people who work for others, and who often complain about all the money that the boss makes. Well without that boss, they wouldn't even have a job.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Do people think that the big chain stores suddenly came out of nowhere? Do they think that people were born knowing how to run a business? Do they think that those who start up businesses don't have sleepless nights when things don't go so well?

There are many people who wouldn't know where to start, and wouldn't want the responsibility. Those are the people who work for others, and who often complain about all the money that the boss makes. Well without that boss, they wouldn't even have a job.

Do you think the big chain stores started as big chain stores from nothing? No, they started as much more humble businesses that were added to over the years, often by sons who inherited the store and thus were pretty much as close as it gets to being born knowing how to run a business. (Who knows more about running a business -- the child of a business owner or the child of a drug addict?)

There are many people who wouldn't be able to be bosses if it weren't for the people who were willing to work all the lower-paying jobs that are necessary to keep the business running. Those are the same people who often complain about how "easy" their low-paid workers have it, despite the fact that without those workers, they wouldn't even have a job.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just making the point that owners need employees as much as employees need jobs. I have worked many jobs where I couldn't simply forget about it when I came home, either because I needed to stay competitive in my field or because my job didn't pay me enough for me to be able to relax and not do an endless job search for something that paid better.

Yes, company owners work hard. They certainly do seem to complain about it a LOT given how much they praise hard work at other times. But employees work hard, too, and for a lot less money, with a lot less satisfaction of having accomplished much other than sustaining themselves.

And nearly anybody who is in position to end up running a business has been privileged with more experience about how it's done than the average person they hire.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just making the point that owners need employees as much as employees need jobs. I have worked many jobs where I couldn't simply forget about it when I came home, either because I needed to stay competitive in my field or because my job didn't pay me enough for me to be able to relax and not do an endless job search for something that paid better.

Yes, company owners work hard. They certainly do seem to complain about it a LOT given how much they praise hard work at other times. But employees work hard, too, and for a lot less money, with a lot less satisfaction of having accomplished much other than sustaining themselves.

And nearly anybody who is in position to end up running a business has been privileged with more experience about how it's done than the average person they hire.

I don't think it's just an issue of who works hard, it's about responsibility and risk. I worked for a large company for a while, and those who were paid the most were the ones who were responsible for others. The employees may well work hard, and they get paid for that. If you want to be rich, you have to take risks or be the kind of employee who is in demand.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's just an issue of who works hard, it's about responsibility and risk. I worked for a large company for a while, and those who were paid the most were the ones who were responsible for others. The employees may well work hard, and they get paid for that. If you want to be rich, you have to take risks or be the kind of employee who is in demand.

Risk is an elusive term, as I tried to explain.  Risk is that which is suspended between capital, land, labor and entrepreneurship.  Capital, because it takes investment.  Land, because it takes resources.  Labor because it takes work.  Entrepreneurship, because it takes an idea.  All four risk something in the hope of something better.  Risk is not exclusive to capital or entrepreneurship.

Indeed, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is where to put your money?  I actually believe that one of the problems with wealth today is that it comes by inheritance, and goes to where there is little or no talent.  Hence, wealth is being chased into pockets of what I will call easy money: overseas investments, munitions, etc.  There is very little imagination or talent running the show as compared to, say, the mid-19th-century.  What about the Koch brothers, not building anything but simply trying to play with money and buy ideology?  That is perhaps why we are seeing the resurgence of flim-flam or snake-oil businesses, and fraud schemes in the securities businesses.

Alternatively, one of the greatest problems with entrepreneurship is that the person who plants a business doesn't have the qualities to patiently grow or run a business.  We saw this with Apple, although Steve Jobs kept trying to pull it back with phenom-gadgets.  A better example is Bill Gates, who today is more active in his foundation giving away money.

In any case, back to privatization.  The big argument is always that it promotes efficiency. But I don't see any correlation between private capital and efficiency.  I see it between size and efficiency.  Big capital organizations like Dupont Chemical, BP Oil or Boeing Aircraft manifest huge waste.  So the efficiency argument is a ruse.

As I say, privatization simply brings in another mouth to be fed.  The rhetoric is usually coupled with a more confidential desire to dismantle the whole thing.  That's why we see it coming in from the right...they want to dismantle the entire economic safety net.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it's just an issue of who works hard, it's about responsibility and risk. I worked for a large company for a while, and those who were paid the most were the ones who were responsible for others. The employees may well work hard, and they get paid for that. If you want to be rich, you have to take risks or be the kind of employee who is in demand.

Risk is an elusive term, as I tried to explain.  Risk is that which is suspended between capital, land, labor and entrepreneurship.  Capital, because it takes investment.  Land, because it takes resources.  Labor because it takes work.  Entrepreneurship, because it takes an idea.  All four risk something in the hope of something better.  Risk is not exclusive to capital or entrepreneurship.

Indeed, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is where to put your money?  I actually believe that one of the problems with wealth today is that it comes by inheritance, and goes to where there is little or no talent.  Hence, wealth is being chased into pockets of what I will call easy money: overseas investments, munitions, etc.  There is very little imagination or talent running the show as compared to, say, the mid-19th-century.  What about the Koch brothers, not building anything but simply trying to play with money and buy ideology?  That is perhaps why we are seeing the resurgence of flim-flam or snake-oil businesses, and fraud schemes in the securities businesses.

Alternatively, one of the greatest problems with entrepreneurship is that the person who plants a business doesn't have the qualities to patiently grow or run a business.  We saw this with Apple, although Steve Jobs kept trying to pull it back with phenom-gadgets.  A better example is Bill Gates, who today is more active in his foundation giving away money.

In any case, back to privatization.  The big argument is always that it promotes efficiency. But I don't see any correlation between private capital and efficiency.  I see it between size and efficiency.  Big capital organizations like Dupont Chemical, BP Oil or Boeing Aircraft manifest huge waste.  So the efficiency argument is a ruse.

As I say, privatization simply brings in another mouth to be fed.  The rhetoric is usually coupled with a more confidential desire to dismantle the whole thing.  That's why we see it coming in from the right...they want to dismantle the entire economic safety net.

When I talk about risk, I mean money of course And the argument is incorrect (but often given) because 90%+ of Business Capital is inherited, most of the families that own the large corporations are the same families that did before the great depression, in fact they now own a greater percentage than ever before, but I also mean other things. It takes a calm and confident person to be able to build a business and employ other people without getting stressed about it. Nope those families employ managers even CEOs that are taking the pay check employ so many advisors and mangers to take the fall if something goes wrong Risk also involves the willingness to sacrifice a lot of time, Or pay people to run the business the willingness to be responsible for others,Business stopped doing that a least 2 decades ago, that has not been the case for my entire working life. and to be in the position where the buck stops in the end. Except they more than often Are not and as seen actually get tax payer funded bailouts when they fuck up It's "safer" to be an employee. It's not a choice if you were not born rich There are a lot of people who start small businesses, and they do risk their own money, and take out loans. If the business doesn't work, they could be totally stuffed. And very few Small businesses progress to medium business and even less to large (the point of peak profitability) without being taken over by existing Conglomerates

Re privatisation, I agree to an extent. Privatisation is meant to introduce competition and lower prices, but I haven't seen any evidence of that with some services - gas, transport, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:Veya, if you want me to reply to you, please don't do that post within a post thing.

It's not me who's saying that hard work is the issue - that was Ben. I'm saying that it takes a lot more than hard work to start, run, and build a successful business. If nobody did it, there would be no jobs in the private sector, no matter how hard someone is prepared to work.