On 2014-04-28 08:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/04/2014 07:41, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-26 18:47, d wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 07:33:21 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
It is not widely known that, while the rest of the Civil Service is
headed by people from many universities, the Treasury is almost wholly
Oxbridge.

Doesn't surprise me. Most of the chinless wonders seem to float to
the top.

Patronage and nepotism.

I wonder if any of them actually have economics or maths degrees or its
just a swathe of useless liberal arts degrees.

It doesn't much matter, it's only a jobclub for the aristocracy's
surplus offspring. (See also banks, BBC.)

What's it like living in 1910?

Perhaps you missed the study showing that there was more social mobility
in Britain in the 12th century than there is in the 21st. Perhaps you've
missed Piketty's surprise best-seller saying much the same thing.

From a summary of Piketty's work in today's Guardian: "those who have
family fortunes are the winners, and everyone else doesn't have much of
a shot of being wealthy unless they marry into or inherit money. [...]
No one else can ever catch up."

Actually a few people can catch up, by using laws intended to protect
wealthy families: primarily property parasites and bankers.

Another recent study shows that almost all laws enacted in the US favour
very wealthy individuals and corporations. In Britain such laws have
been in place for centuries.

On 28/04/2014 09:42, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-28 08:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/04/2014 07:41, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-26 18:47, d wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 07:33:21 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
It is not widely known that, while the rest of the Civil Service is
headed by people from many universities, the Treasury is almost wholly
Oxbridge.

Doesn't surprise me. Most of the chinless wonders seem to float to
the top.

Patronage and nepotism.

I wonder if any of them actually have economics or maths degrees or its
just a swathe of useless liberal arts degrees.

It doesn't much matter, it's only a jobclub for the aristocracy's
surplus offspring. (See also banks, BBC.)

What's it like living in 1910?

Perhaps you missed the study showing that there was more social mobility
in Britain in the 12th century than there is in the 21st.

Wasn't so much society to be mobile in back then.

Perhaps you've
missed Piketty's surprise best-seller saying much the same thing.

From a summary of Piketty's work in today's Guardian: "those who have
family fortunes are the winners, and everyone else doesn't have much of
a shot of being wealthy unless they marry into or inherit money. [...]
No one else can ever catch up."

Lovely piece of selective quoting.


Actually a few people can catch up, by using laws intended to protect
wealthy families: primarily property parasites and bankers.

Another recent study shows that almost all laws enacted in the US favour
very wealthy individuals and corporations. In Britain such laws have
been in place for centuries.


Again,lovely piece of misdirection.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 2014-04-28 10:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
From a summary of Piketty's work in today's Guardian: "those who have
family fortunes are the winners, and everyone else doesn't have much of
a shot of being wealthy unless they marry into or inherit money. [...]
No one else can ever catch up."

Lovely piece of selective quoting.

I'm happy for interested readers to read the sources and make their own
conclusions, but here's a snippet from Piketty himself:

“It’s very difficult to make a democratic system work when you have such
extreme inequality” in income, he said, “and such extreme inequality in
terms of political influence and the production of knowledge and
information. One of the big lessons of the 20th century is that we don’t
need 19th-century inequality to grow.” But that’s just where the
capitalist world is heading again, he concludes. [...]

He favors a progressive global tax on real wealth (minus debt), with the
proceeds not handed to inefficient governments but redistributed to
those with less capital. “We just want a way to share the tax burden
that is fair and practical,” he said." [1]

[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/bu...karl-marx.html

On 28/04/2014 10:56, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-28 10:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
From a summary of Piketty's work in today's Guardian: "those who have
family fortunes are the winners, and everyone else doesn't have much of
a shot of being wealthy unless they marry into or inherit money. [...]
No one else can ever catch up."

Lovely piece of selective quoting.

I'm happy for interested readers to read the sources and make their own
conclusions, but here's a snippet from Piketty himself:

“It’s very difficult to make a democratic system work when you have such
extreme inequality” in income, he said, “and such extreme inequality in
terms of political influence and the production of knowledge and
information. One of the big lessons of the 20th century is that we don’t
need 19th-century inequality to grow.” But that’s just where the
capitalist world is heading again, he concludes. [...]

He favors a progressive global tax on real wealth (minus debt), with the
proceeds not handed to inefficient governments but redistributed to
those with less capital. “We just want a way to share the tax burden
that is fair and practical,” he said." [1]

[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/bu...karl-marx.html


You do have to realise he is primarily talking about the USA, though he
does expand to notionaly cover the "English Speaking World" That, in
itself, is something of a French construct as it should cover such major
economies as India and the Dominios. Also, to a lesser extent, African
and other Commonwealth countries. However the French regard it as
referring to the UK, USA and those bits of occupied Canada west of
Quebec. The more advanced may have heard of Australia.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 28/04/2014 10:56, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-28 10:45, Graeme Wall wrote:
From a summary of Piketty's work in today's Guardian: "those who have
family fortunes are the winners, and everyone else doesn't have much of
a shot of being wealthy unless they marry into or inherit money. [...]
No one else can ever catch up."

Lovely piece of selective quoting.

I'm happy for interested readers to read the sources and make their own
conclusions, but here's a snippet from Piketty himself:

“It’s very difficult to make a democratic system work when you have such
extreme inequality” in income, he said, “and such extreme inequality in
terms of political influence and the production of knowledge and
information. One of the big lessons of the 20th century is that we don’t
need 19th-century inequality to grow.” But that’s just where the
capitalist world is heading again, he concludes. [...]

He favors a progressive global tax on real wealth (minus debt), with the
proceeds not handed to inefficient governments but redistributed to
those with less capital. “We just want a way to share the tax burden
that is fair and practical,” he said." [1]

[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/bu...karl-marx.html

The operative line in "Wall Street" was not "Greed is good" but "Do you
think we live in a democracy?"

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

It continues to amaze me that such problems are not more widespread.
If you are bored, desperate or just feeling in need of cheering up then stand and watch people use the barriers and Oyster.
At least 25% can't use the barrier; not holding the card on the reader long enough, trying to get it read through layers of other things, in proximity to other cards and best of all, obstructing the sensors.

Many blame the system. Mostly it's not knowing how to use a barrier.

In message , at 22:53:38 on Tue, 29
Apr 2014, webjunk remarked:
It continues to amaze me that such problems are not more widespread.
If you are bored, desperate or just feeling in need of cheering up then
stand and watch people use the barriers and Oyster.
At least 25% can't use the barrier; not holding the card on the reader
long enough, trying to get it read through layers of other things, in
proximity to other cards and best of all, obstructing the sensors.

Many blame the system. Mostly it's not knowing how to use a barrier.

Not that I want to join the bash-the-Norfolk-residents brigade, but
having spent several years observing seniors with smartcard-twirlies
boarding buses in another county, the failure rate was astonishing
(especially as these are very likely frequent users) when it came to
holding the card sufficiently close to the correct part of the validator
next to the bus driver.
--
Roland Perry

On 28/04/2014 09:42, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-28 08:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/04/2014 07:41, Hils wrote:

It doesn't much matter, it's only a jobclub for the aristocracy's
surplus offspring. (See also banks, BBC.)

What's it like living in 1910?

Perhaps you missed the study showing that there was more social mobility
in Britain in the 12th century than there is in the 21st.

The best things that ever happened for social mobility in England were
the Black Death and the Battle of the Somme. Shall we have a rerun of them?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 28/04/2014 19:04, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 28/04/2014 09:42, Hils wrote:
On 2014-04-28 08:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/04/2014 07:41, Hils wrote:

It doesn't much matter, it's only a jobclub for the aristocracy's
surplus offspring. (See also banks, BBC.)

What's it like living in 1910?

Perhaps you missed the study showing that there was more social mobility
in Britain in the 12th century than there is in the 21st.

The best things that ever happened for social mobility in England were
the Black Death and the Battle of the Somme. Shall we have a rerun of them?



Black Death was 14th Century, not 12th. I don't know what study Mr Hils
is referring to.

The effect of the Somme (and WW1 casualties generally) is not quite so
clear cut. Proportionally far more officers were killed than private
soldiers[1]. What did cause major social upheaval was the employment of
thousands of women in what was considered to be male only professions.
Though that is not necessarily social mobility in the class war sense.

[1] I'm just glad my grandfather wasn't posted to his regiment in France
until 1st August. On the first day of the Somme offensive a month
earlier, every single one of the junior officers of his regiment were
killed.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail