....
> 1) Hattersley believes that giving the 'poor' greater resources would result in
> greater 'cooperation' in society. Blair is less convinced and is worried about
> the consequences of higher taxes on the rich because this would reduce
> incentives. The reality is that both are relying too much on a money-value
> model of society. Hattersley relies too much on the benefits of the transfer of
> income, Blair puts too much emphasis on money as an incentive. In fact by
> transferring power and control of real resources rather than money to the
> 'poor' and altering the incentives to the 'rich' to be less money-oriented both
> could gain.
>
I start to feel sorry for the rich. They expected to "create" more
and more wealth we supposedly all depend on, but in the same time
to be less "money oriented"!
...And all these people are our experts pocketing ten times the salary
than your average worker and a lot of free din-dins...
no, I failed to see any new ideas materialising, it is the overused
"capitalism with a human face" - only works for
limited periods of economic stability provided by
exploitation of the third world etc, etc.
It gets exhausted ever so often for pete's sake
am I alone in being fed up by this meaningless bs
we have to take as the fruits of these brilliant minds??
Eva
> 2) Public ownership in its traditional form is in reality not much
> distinguishable from private ownership in that it results in top down
> management which, at the margin, runs the enterprise to serve the interests of
> the managers at the expense of everyone else. In any case 'ownership' is surely
> an inappropriate concept for human organisations - what is important is how the
> individuals' efforts are channelled to a common aim. Currently in a business
> the aims of the shareholders (as far as they're able to express an opinion) is
> to see steady dividend income and a rising share price; the managers' aims are
> to make sure they get their bonuses, they keep their jobs or if they don't they
> can move easily to the next job. They also seem to like making deals that while
> giving them a thrill and a high profile, often aren't very good for their
> shareholders or employees! Employees are mainly interested in their salaries or
> wages and their working conditions. Customers are interested in price and
> quality - as far as possible. Taxpayers are (or should be) concerned about the
> consequences to health or crime etc of the businesses' output and working
> practices. Although these different aims may coincide, they frequently diverge
> or even conflict quite markedly. And yet often the different groups actually
> represent different aspects of the same people - and certainly in the economy
> as a whole most of us have multiple roles. In any case, as I hope I have
> convinced you, we are interdependent, and the condition of others in society
> has an effect on us. So we need to re-direct business to maximising individual
> quality of life or human benefit in sustainable ways. If this is a common aim
> we can then utilise the synergy of cooperation. In this case the public/private
> distinction becomes irrelevant and businesses compete in a market of human
> benefit value rather than money value.
>
> 3 The traditional role of unions has been that of 'organised antagonism' to
> management. Because this results in a single point of contact between those on
> the shop-floor and those directing the companies' operations and strategy there
> is a bottleneck of communication and the division of aims is perpetuated.
> Clearly unions too have been a way of 'using power collectively for individual
> aims' but there comes a point at which the end must take over from the means
> and this can only be done by broadening the base of communication within
> companies - ensuring that the voice of every individual has the opportunity to
> be heard by every other across all levels. I think Roy and Tony ought to be
> able to agree on this.
>
> A comment near the end of the seminar by a distinguished academic and former
> Labour MP was possibly one of the most important, expressing the view that 'the
> ability of humans to learn and develop could be the foundation of a new
> ideology'.
>
> Two premises of such an 'ideology' would be:
> 1) Since learning and development is an ongoing process its ultimate outcome is
> uncertain. This means that no human ever ceases to have potential for a
> profound positive input into society.
>
> 2) We have moved into a new phase of evolution - where survival of the fittest
> no longer applies to individuals, but to ideas and their potential to benefit
> the human race at both the individual and collective level.
>
> Could the areas of common ground I have suggested here form the 'detailed
> working political philosophy' that David Halpern believes is 'within reach'?
>
> Diarmid Weir
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted to uk-policy, a service of Nexus. http://www.netnexus.org/
> Hosting and email provided by new media consultants On-Line Publishing
>
>
>
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
