"I live without cash – and I manage just fine "

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
Depends on the understanding of the word "debate" or indeed argue :)

To be able to argue a point clearly and objectively is not a bad thing - quite the reverse - in my opinion of course.

I believe its okay to argue the point that "I live without cash – and I manage just fine" is morally deficient. Money is the basis of taxation, taxation is the basis of universal health care, the welfare state and, in the form of things like water rates, things like clean, safe drinking water, sewage etc. For these things to work, people (and yes, I absolutely agree companies) must shoulder their share of the burden - to the benefit of all. Without that, people die, disease is rampant, unemployment spells destitution. So deciding to "opt out" of paying your share by "taking food instead of money" and other things aluded to in the thread shows, to me a weak moral compass.

Remember, money is not the root of all evil, it is the love of money that is.

So as a man attempting to live a self sustaining life, to grow our own food, heat and cook without fossil fuels and work with nature and the environment it would be very easy to say "yes, stuff money". But I have elderly neighbours who rely on their pension, families who need their children immunised without having to pay and the disabled and unemployed who should not be reduced to begging. So I believe that I have a responsibility not only to myself - but also to a wider society.

I do agree wholeheartedly with those who despise corporate greed, the huge amounts of government inefficiency and the individual scroungers too. But I do not believe the answer to that is to turn our backs on centralised welfare and healthcare, to deny the funding of law and order, or to cut of fresh water and sewage from those who cannot pay. I want a society where the basic necessities of life are available - free of charge - to the truly needy (if not the shiftless and indolent). But since I want that, I feel that I am morally obligated to shoulder my share of the burden of it. Removal of money implies the removal of universal care and human rights - and I feel okay arguing that that is not a cause to be espoused without challenge

Red
 

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
1
Hampshire
I have been known to disagree with British Red on occasion (politely, I trust!), but I agree with 99% of that. However.....

Another phrase that I see bandied about on here and elsewhere endlessly is "corporate greed". What exactly does that mean? A company legally optimising its profitability for its shareholders (and the biggest shareholders still tend to be pension providers)? And as any company knows, keeping its workforce happy and motivated is worth its weight in gold (or improved profitability to be more accurate!). And a profitable company looks to expand, helping not only its existing staff and new recruits, but also third=party service providers and their workforces. And any operating decision should also be made with the future in mind - no good having a bumper year if you go into liquidation the next!

True, they should stay within the laws of the lands they operate in, and in most cases it makes sense to do so from an economic standpoint. And sometimes they screw up big-time through ineffective oversight by their Board, auditors and/or the government - Barings bank being one classic example, the recent banking fiasco another. Does that make it all bad? did anyone object to the banks pouring in hundreds of billions to the UK economy over the last few decades, before it all subsequently went horribly wrong? Would anyone have preferred to have no NHS because some bankers got big bonuses?
 

Manacles

Settler
Jan 27, 2011
596
0
No longer active on BCUK
I have been known to disagree with British Red on occasion (politely, I trust!), but I agree with 99% of that. However.....

Another phrase that I see bandied about on here and elsewhere endlessly is "corporate greed". What exactly does that mean? A company legally optimising its profitability for its shareholders (and the biggest shareholders still tend to be pension providers)? And as any company knows, keeping its workforce happy and motivated is worth its weight in gold (or improved profitability to be more accurate!). And a profitable company looks to expand, helping not only its existing staff and new recruits, but also third=party service providers and their workforces. And any operating decision should also be made with the future in mind - no good having a bumper year if you go into liquidation the next!

True, they should stay within the laws of the lands they operate in, and in most cases it makes sense to do so from an economic standpoint. And sometimes they screw up big-time through ineffective oversight by their Board, auditors and/or the government - Barings bank being one classic example, the recent banking fiasco another. Does that make it all bad? did anyone object to the banks pouring in hundreds of billions to the UK economy over the last few decades, before it all subsequently went horribly wrong? Would anyone have preferred to have no NHS because some bankers got big bonuses?

I can give you an example of this - a previous employer of mine "outsourced" work to another country and made many people redundant in the UK (some of whom are still out of work). The people taken on to replace those made redundant were paid a pittance, so much so that when it was suggested that we all went out for a bite to eat (and I.m talking about a pub meal not tea at the Ritz) these guys did not have enough money to buy the cheapest meal on the menu (about a fiver). The rest of us paid for it for them of course, but, and here I believe is the crunch, that company was prepared to let UK people go in order to pay overseas people a good deal less, and even when those overease people came here to "learn the job" were not prepared to give them sufficient expenses allowances to eat out once in a while. To me, and this is a personal view, that is "corporate greed".

I have always believed that the greatest asset any company could have is a happy motivated workforce. Sadly so many employers place profit above that.
 
Last edited:

Swallow

Native
May 27, 2011
1,545
4
London
This seems to be catching on in Greece.

A few months ago, an alternative currency was introduced in the Greek port city of Volos. It was a grass-roots initiative that has since grown into a network of more than 800 members, in a community struggling to afford items in euros during a deepening financial crisis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17680904
 

Toddy

Mod
Mod
Jan 21, 2005
38,937
4,570
S. Lanarkshire
What underpins this TEM though ?
Seriously, the banks used to use gold, but what is the underpinning that stops folks just writing their own TEM and expecting others to accept it ? :dunno:

cheers,
M
 

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
1
Hampshire
Or who values an item, my carrot is worth ten minuets of electricity. Um no.

Well, you set up some arbitrary unit of exchange - eg a "wobbler" is worth 5 carrots, and 2kw of electricity. Then you set up someone to ensure the wobbler can't be forged easily, and someone to "advance" wobblers to those in urgent need, with a small wobbler fee to compensate him for his time, and someone else to identify the respective worth of goods and services to wobblers. Of course that would also have to include a mini-wobbler fee to pay for a couple of heavies to make sure the wobblers were repaid....
 

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
1
Hampshire
I can give you an example of this - a previous employer of mine "outsourced" work to another country and made many people redundant in the UK (some of whom are still out of work). The people taken on to replace those made redundant were paid a pittance, so much so that when it was suggested that we all went out for a bite to eat (and I.m talking about a pub meal not tea at the Ritz) these guys did not have enough money to buy the cheapest meal on the menu (about a fiver). The rest of us paid for it for them of course, but, and here I believe is the crunch, that company was prepared to let UK people go in order to pay overseas people a good deal less, and even when those overease people came here to "learn the job" were not prepared to give them sufficient expenses allowances to eat out once in a while. To me, and this is a personal view, that is "corporate greed".

I have always believed that the greatest asset any company could have is a happy motivated workforce. Sadly so many employers place profit above that.

Shame on you - I'm sure the jobs went to a country with much lower living standards, where the additional jobs were a god-send to the people involved. You shouldn't be so parochial:) Think of it as bringing third-world countries up to first-world standards - after all, that's exactly how Japan, Taiwan and Korea graduated (and China iscurrently doing) via low-wage industries building a position for them in the world market place. It provides inward investment to develop new machinery and improve quality, and export success translates to standard-of-living improvement for their population. And an element of increased profits is repatriated to the UK in the form off corporation tax and/or investment income.

The other issue of course is - what is a pittance? Jobs with multinationals are highly sought after in the third world, as the pay and benefits tend to be much better than the norm. Very often one person being paid a very low wage by UK standards is actually supporting an extended family in their local community, and is able to do so. Are these multinationals evil, or god-sends to the local populations?

THe UK priced itself out of many manufacturing industries through high wages, poor productivity and iffy quality control. Conversely, Germany prospered in those same markets - despite high wages - because they were highly productive and their quality became a by-word. People were- and still are - prepared to pay top dollar for quality. In short, we shot ourselves in the foot. I can remember visiting factories in the early 70s where a lathe operator couldn't turn his machine on (different union job), sweep up the shavings (different union) or perform basic maintenance on his machine - eg lubricating it (different union). Quality control was non-existent - complaints about shoddy work resulted in strikes by "outraged" employees indignant at being criticised. Poor quality products couldn't sell abroad - think the car industry - and eventually collapsed. Who in their right mind would buy a Morris Marina when you could get a BMW for the same price or less in Europe or the US? True story - one of my staff brought a bread factory out on strike. His sin? He turned up at the factory wearing a suit and carrying a brief-case. The van-drivers thought he was CID investigationg one of their fiddles, and the whole factory went on strike as a result. That was british manufacturing in the 70s.
 

British Red

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Dec 30, 2005
26,709
1,947
Mercia
I reminded of a conversation at the time of the film "Indecent Proposal" when a guy in an office said to a very "proper" girl, that no woman would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. She replied that of course they would and that she herself would.

He then enquired whether she would sleep with him for 50p.

"Of course not" she replied "what kind of woman do you think I am"?

"We've already established that" the guy said "now we are negotiating".

I am reminded of that because the amount of money involved in an unpleasant act is not the thing that makes it unpleasant. So an individual taking "food instead of pay" or a large corporation illegally evading tax are, to me, equally immoral. Both are guilty of greed and consider it a game - rather than an unfunded life saving operation.

Red
 
Last edited:

Manacles

Settler
Jan 27, 2011
596
0
No longer active on BCUK
I reminded of a conversation at the time of the film "Indecent Proposal" when a guy in an office said to a very "proper" girl, that no woman would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. She replied that of course they would and that she herself would.

He then enquired whether she would sleep with him for 50p.

"Of course not" she replied "what kind of woman do you think I am"?

"We've already established that" the guy said "now we are negotiating".

I am reminded of that because the amount of money involved in an unpleasant act is not the thing that makes it unpleasant. So an individual taking "food instead of pay" or a large corporation illegally evading tax are, to me, equally immoral. Both are guilty of greed and consider it a game - rather than an unfunded life saving operation.

Red

That's a really intriguing point of view Red. I struggle to compare "taking food instead of wages" with illegally evading tax on a corporate scale. Surely every pheasant beater in the country is guilty of that now and again? The idea of exchanging goods for labour underpins the barter system and organisations such as "skillshare" would be acting illegally under that premise.
 

Manacles

Settler
Jan 27, 2011
596
0
No longer active on BCUK
Shame on you - I'm sure the jobs went to a country with much lower living standards, where the additional jobs were a god-send to the people involved. You shouldn't be so parochial:) Think of it as bringing third-world countries up to first-world standards - after all, that's exactly how Japan, Taiwan and Korea graduated (and China iscurrently doing) via low-wage industries building a position for them in the world market place. It provides inward investment to develop new machinery and improve quality, and export success translates to standard-of-living improvement for their population. And an element of increased profits is repatriated to the UK in the form off corporation tax and/or investment income.

The other issue of course is - what is a pittance? Jobs with multinationals are highly sought after in the third world, as the pay and benefits tend to be much better than the norm. Very often one person being paid a very low wage by UK standards is actually supporting an extended family in their local community, and is able to do so. Are these multinationals evil, or god-sends to the local populations?

THe UK priced itself out of many manufacturing industries through high wages, poor productivity and iffy quality control. Conversely, Germany prospered in those same markets - despite high wages - because they were highly productive and their quality became a by-word. People were- and still are - prepared to pay top dollar for quality. In short, we shot ourselves in the foot. I can remember visiting factories in the early 70s where a lathe operator couldn't turn his machine on (different union job), sweep up the shavings (different union) or perform basic maintenance on his machine - eg lubricating it (different union). Quality control was non-existent - complaints about shoddy work resulted in strikes by "outraged" employees indignant at being criticised. Poor quality products couldn't sell abroad - think the car industry - and eventually collapsed. Who in their right mind would buy a Morris Marina when you could get a BMW for the same price or less in Europe or the US? True story - one of my staff brought a bread factory out on strike. His sin? He turned up at the factory wearing a suit and carrying a brief-case. The van-drivers thought he was CID investigationg one of their fiddles, and the whole factory went on strike as a result. That was british manufacturing in the 70s.

Why shame on me??? I think maybe you might need to re-read my post. Incidentally they all got the push shortly afterwards as they were easier to make redundant went further cuts were deemed necessary. Well you put a good case for global capitalism, but sadly do not illustrate any of the potential negative side of that, such as a country that is in ascendancy today is just as likely to lose investment in the future as manufacturers continually seek to find the cheapest place to manufacture and then move on when costs increase. This is something we are likely to see quite dramatically in China over the next ten years.
 
Last edited:

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
1
Hampshire
Why shame on me??? I think maybe you might need to re-read my post. Incidentally they all got the push shortly afterwards as they were easier to make redundant went further cuts were deemed necessary. Well you put a good case for global capitalism, but sadly do not illustrate any of the potential negative side of that, such as a country that is in ascendancy today is just as likely to lose investment in the future as manufacturers continually seek to find the cheapest place to manufacture and then move on when costs increase. This is something we are likely to see quite dramatically in China over the next ten years.


Shame on you for being so inconsiderate for the desperately poor in the third-world, instead only thinking about the well-off (relatively) in the UK:)

As for the rest, you clearly didn't think it through - Japan/Taiwan and Korea progressed from third-world economies into first-world economies by utilising their export revenues during their cheap-as-chips era to invest in modern technology, productivity and quality control. China will go the same way, as will India, if they can keep corruption under control.
 

Manacles

Settler
Jan 27, 2011
596
0
No longer active on BCUK
Shame on you for being so inconsiderate for the desperately poor in the third-world, instead only thinking about the well-off (relatively) in the UK:)

As for the rest, you clearly didn't think it through - Japan/Taiwan and Korea progressed from third-world economies into first-world economies by utilising their export revenues during their cheap-as-chips era to invest in modern technology, productivity and quality control. China will go the same way, as will India, if they can keep corruption under control.

At what point was as being was I "inconsiderate for the desperately poor in the third world" when I expressed concern that my former employer was not paying the guys from overseas enough expenses allowance to buy a meal out in the UK?

Yes I did think it through, and if you take, for example, Japan their economy has been shrinking for some years as manufacturing has left their country for other eastern countries , mainly Taiwan and Korea
 
Last edited:

Magentus

Settler
Oct 1, 2008
915
39
West Midlands
Corporations have absolutely no loyalty to any particular country - only themselves and their shareholders - capitalism by definition must continually grow in order to survive and what we are seeing now are the inevitable cracks appearing in the hugely flawed system- you cannot maintain continual growth in a finite world.
 

Manacles

Settler
Jan 27, 2011
596
0
No longer active on BCUK
Corporations have absolutely no loyalty to any particular country - only themselves and their shareholders - capitalism by definition must continually grow in order to survive and what we are seeing now are the inevitable cracks appearing in the hugely flawed system- you cannot maintain continual growth in a finite world.

Luke, you're right, and, sadly, that continual growth will leave people ultimatley worse off. I think we can see with the recent banking fiascos where it is capable of going wrong.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE