Blog powered by Typepad

« Blog Note: Comments | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 25.8.13 »

Saturday, 24 August 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Socialists love to help the poor. That's why they advocate policies that produce so many of them.

Jane Jacobs has a list of fourteen values that define the "Commercial Syndrome," and fourteen that make up the "Guardian Syndrome." Each has its own "System of Survival." Although I am pretty solidly on the Commercial side of her ledger, I think she tries pretty hard to be even handed, in explaining why each syndrome thinks as it does, and why every society needs both. Using her theory as a lens, it's easy enough to see, for example, why British industry fell behind Germany's, in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century period.

I hadn't heard of the lady before but checking her on Wiki makes her sound rather interesting.

Yes, but it's entirely possible that the "under-class", those who do not have the aptitude to compete for the ever diminishing number of middle class jobs that still maintain increasing output, can live on handouts respectably and with dignity. A bit like you for the last ten years, really! :-)

And the new "under-class" can make their contribution by choosing well with their hand-outs, rather than having Dave or his mates spend it through the public sector.

I'd like to be a chav, please. I'm sick of slogging my guts out with that king Microsoft SharePoint software package making more and more people redundant as I go. When will it be my turn, please?

If you'd never bought me that bloody BBC B microcomputer in 1980 I'd be happily ensconced in a council flat with more time than the odd bank holiday weekend to do a bit of trolling.

xox SoD

Cheeky 'SoD'!

Personally I think the middle class is alive and well - just keeping their heads down and avoiding both the upper class plonkers and the lower class thugs. If only we (the MC) could engineer a fight to the finish between both lots.

"the Chancellor is inflating asset prices which suits his rich chums with houses in London now selling to beleaguered foreigners for stratospheric prices": have the rich chums become homeless then? The poor souls.

Nah! They've probably 'buggered orf' to buy nice villas in the Bahamas!

SoD has it nailed: "...the ever diminishing number of middle class jobs that still maintain increasing output..."

Focus on that "increasing output" bit. Once that falters, we're done for. Someone, somewhere, must eventually pay for the handouts. Productivity is all.

If we ever reach a point where the new generation is less productive than the old, all bets are off; the handouts will stop, the entitlements will be reneged on, the lights will go out, and the bread-and-circuses will be over.

I hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime, but sometimes I worry: endless dumbing down, endles PC nonsense, unlimited immigration by unproductive groups, etc etc. It can't go on for ever. It will stop.

Indeed so, Andrew, and if you wish to throw stones at someone for throwing petrol on the fire, toss them at 'SoD' who spends all day installing MS SharePoint which does exactly what you have described.

I have a gnawing fear that the current technological revolution is not going to be solved by classical free market philosophies as, say, the industrial revolution did. Quite how it will be solved I do not know but happily I will not be around to find out!

SoD=Son of David?

"Son of Duff" is the proper Mr. Adams, or so I've been 'reliably' (but take anything with the word 'reliable' on these here pages of D&N ...) informed.

Do you mind, JK! You can bet the deeds of your house on the dead cert that any forecasts by this blog will always be completely wrong.

And, yes, Michael, 'Son of Duff' is the correct term.

You'll mind David, when I first began here I took to using the numbers from "your comments" times (as above > 0852) on my lottery tickets.

That was smallish cash I of course didn't reckon much with until you had me betting on ...

... from then on, I've realized better returns avoiding whatever numbers You happen to be associated with.

(I have yet to figure why that phenomenon should be so.)

A very slight error of judgment, JK, due entirely to whisky but, alas, not 'wild, wild wimmin'!

The comments to this entry are closed.