Yup, and did you know it was the founder of ARCO that convinced the Bank (Yorkshire Penny Bank, as was) that there was no reason to charge him if he was in credit, the original "free banking"

Nobody is encouraged to save anymore, even ISAS's are a con, poor interest rates and a poor deposit limit.

I don't have the answer, before anyone asks

Standee, who wants to tell everyone how to live their lives it seems, STILL will not answer questions.

What is it with right wing dogma driven people?

Do they REALLY lack the ability answer straight forward questions?

ask a question not based on dogma and I will reply, YOU are part of the problem.

Or take a circular route...

Taxation from those who are above the limits to claim tax credits goes into the treasury through one door and then back out through another door to be handed out in benefits, a majority of which goes to working people who earn less than what is considered to be a level at which they can sustain themselves - we're halfway round the circle now.

Because the vast majority of these people are just regular folk like the rest of us they use the money to buy things with, food, maybe alcohol, maybe tobacco, they use it to pay their rent, their council tax and they use it to pay their utility bills and sometimes they pop down to Brighthouse and buy the despised 50" TV sets that they will never pay off in their lifetime - and the likes of Brighthouse make good profits and they employ people to work in their stores, some of whom probably claim in-work benefits, and Brighthouse pay employers contribution and corporate tax and the companies they buy their stock from do the same and their employees pay tax and those companies pay employers contributions and corporate tax and on, and on, and the circle of income, expenditure and taxation is complete.

And the ONLY time that any of this money leaks out of the UK economy is when multi-national corporations do not pay the corporate tax on their UK earnings and squirrel it abroad somewhere.

What goes around comes around, and around, and around...

Those people should accept the fact they do not have the income to own the TV, and not have a facility to buy.

You've kind of missed his point there. Money that goes to support benefits claimants and those pesky immigrants is a drop in the ocean compared to what big companies avoid paying in tax.

How?
You seem to be able to tell me about my life and what I do.
The trouble is you don't have a clue about my life in any way whatsoever yet you claim I am part of the problem!
So!!
WHAT PROBLEM?

The point being that in 2008 a calamitous collapse in the world banking system had exactly the same cause and effect as you are suggesting, someone turned off the tap and the world stopped spending money and the world decreed that this was a bad thing and countries all over the world started printing more of their own money and throwing it at banks urging them to lend again, for the truth was, every capitalist system exists purely on easy credit, turn the tap off and the world stops turning.

Take solace in the fact that the VERY poor in society, the ones who draw benefits and are ACTUALLY UNEMPLOYED are in the minority but are so poor that they can't afford accountants to hide their money and instead they have to spend it all in the UK because they can't afford to go abroad, and in doing so, we all get that money back one way or another.

I remember the Yellow savings books in infant school with the larger black TSB that it got transferred into, a proper adults bank book

it was a similar thing I encouraged my own son to do..he bought his first car/paid for half his lessons with the money he saved (which was over a long period of time not me being overly generous)

I've borrowed twice in my life..first was when I needed a car to get to my new job in London in my early 20s because the trains were too expensive (& didn't get me directly to where I needed to be in any case) & then I was lucky enough to buy my own house with a mortgage..
Aside from that I have not, nor will ever buy something unless I have the money for it. If I don't have the money I won't/can't buy it, that's just life. the same principle should apply to everyone..not just those on lower incomes

There are ALWAYS ways to save money, there are ALWAYS ways to live more frugally without 'missing out', why is it people think that they can just go out and get things when they know full well that they can't afford it nor have any intention of paying it back which is theft/fraud.

Vast swathes of people think society owes them, that they are entitled to have X, Y & Z. They don't 'need' these items..it is a want.
I even showed some time back (either here on on the cycling forum I frequent..I forget which) how it is possible to work full time on minimum wage and not just survive but have a life. Not a luxurious life admittedly but still be able to put money away and live 'comfortably'. That is with food on the table and a roof over your head and not worrying about letters coming through your door threatening court because you defaulted on your borrowings.
It reminds me of exactly this time in 2006, I went to a village in W.Yorks, actually on the way up from Hertfordshire to the GF to buy some bicycle wheels (kill 2 birds with one stone). The guys place was small, it was pretty untidy I suppose but surprisingly the chap felt the need to apologise for his abode for some reason. I come from a humble working class background and I'll always be working class despite my postcode & how things turned out. This guy worked, he had his place and ATEOTD he is a human being trying to make his way in life. It was obvious he didn't have much money but we chatted about bikes and his work..I have respect for people like him, in his late 50s, probably never had too many opportunities, probably left school young but he had a job and a roof and seemed happy if not too humble..

Conversely, I have an association with people whom follow their mother and are popping kids out so they can pay for their lifestyle, it's frankly sickening. State benefits are too much of an incentive in [isome[/i cases though rightly are required/needed in many other facets of a civilised society. Sadly our state system is so furked up it isn't true and is open to abuse left right & centre..

When do you suggest we start evicting everyone with a mortgage?

He's a landlord ain't he?
He'd be happy, he could put his rents up ...lol

This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible.

I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements.

Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane.

The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted

Quote ="cod'ead"This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible. I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements. Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane. The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted'" How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits? Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children." www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Quote ="cod'ead"This argument keeps getting raised by elements of the right-wing media and seems to be swallowed by the gullible. I don't know of anyone who thought that producing another child would mean an automatic right to a bigger house or more dosh from the magic money tree. Kids need to be fed and clothed and the additional state benefits of having an extra child won't leave much spare cash to fund any lifestyle improvements. Anyone seriously thinking that could be certifiably insane. The numbers of such families that have been trotted out by Camoron and IDS have been debunked on numerous occasions but they are still often quoted'" How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits? Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children." www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

They must exist or they wouldn't quote them ?

What is needed at the moment is an honesty in politics, yes I know its a novel idea and it will never catch on and the politicians wouldn't understand the concept if you slapped them around the face until they did understand, so what is really needed is a news media who will ask the awkward questions until they get an answer, Paxman was a good start but they grew wise to him and he didn't have the unlimited time to his programmes that would sometimes be required to extract the truth.

So for instance when the much re-quoted lie (outright lie) of "three generation families who have never worked" was doing the rounds via the IDS department of dogma, the eponymous head of that department should have been interviewed live in a studio with the one question requiring an answer - "How many families are we talking about ?", asked and re-asked until he could provide a list of names (the department would have a list of names, after all they pay the money out), or he admitted that it was a falsehood and a lie, if it took all night to get to that point then so be it rather than have the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have to do the research weeks later and find that no such families exist - long after the lie has become factual in the media.

Likewise numbers need to be quoted, they have the statistics and politicians should not go unchallenged when they spout headline phrases about workshy feckless families as if they exist in every second household in every street in the country, numbers, just tell us how many we are talking about here and then we can all decide using our own adult brains whether or not you are looking for scapegoats.

I'll put myself forward for that interviewers job if you like?

The idea that borrowers don't, if not force, then psychologically compel people to take loans is about as untrue as the notion that advertising doesn't affect people at a subconscious level thus affecting their decision-making capability.

And before anyone replies with the usual [i"advertising doesn't affect me in any way" [/inonsense - try erasing the McDonalds logo from your memory.

I've never liked the American term "Brain Washing" not least because it is a rather clumsy and archaic abstraction which was hastily pounced upon by the media in the wake of some alarming studies undertaken by the US military in the wake of the Korean war.

A far better phrase has been commonly used by the Chinese to describe very real and twice as disturbing effects on the human mind brought about by a variety of methods (some of which, admittedly, weren't strictly ethical) - "Thought Reform".

As an aside, I recently read a couple of well researched books that were based on recently declassified CIA files relating to Project Artichoke (which subsequently came under the rubric of MK-ULTRA).

For years people have laughed off the notion that a person's entire personality can be overwritten and/or augmented (undetected by even the person himself) through the delivery of various stimuli thus creating a "Manchurian Candidate". Whilst it is true that the initial evidence for such (American POWs returning from the Korean war) was ultimately proved bogus - it is patently clear even from redacted documents that the CIA not only believed it was possible in the 1960s - they'd actually tested the theory successfully in a variety of field studies. This news was so politically explosive that when the House Select Committee on Assassinations convened during the 70s, the then CIA director, Richard Helms, burned almost all of his notes.

The above is certainly an extreme example of psychological conditioning and the techniques of implementation are far in excess of anything used in advertising. But the MK-ULTRA scientists ultimately discovered that human beings simply didn't require heavy doses of psychoactive drugs, long periods of isolation etc. anyway for significant behaviour modification. Which is precisely what Edward Bernays and his "public relations" acolytes had been telling them for years.

Indeed, the application of simple operant conditioning turned the 70-95% of American servicemen who found it difficult to impossible to fire their weapons at a distance of 30 feet from the enemy in WWII into the ruthless killers of today who fire without thought to the consequences.

The truth is - human beings are a lot easier to control than any of us dare think.

I was in a clients distribution warehouse (huge distribution warehouse) last week which, when you stood back and detached yourself from the scene, blinked and then looked again, could easily have been a scene from a science fiction film that when watched you'd think "I hope that vision of the future never comes true".

No-one walked in the warehouse, it was the size of at least three football pitches and at least forty foot high to the roof, row upon row of storage racks reached almost to the roof and all were colour and number coded and stacked high with brown cardboard boxes - small personal electric transporters with short reach fork lift or flat bed carriers scurried to and fro each with one operator who stood at the back as if welded to the unit, following instructions from a monitor perched in front of them, larger fork lifts followed them to bring boxes down from the roof if needed.

No music played, no distractions allowed, mobile phones were banned, when you were on shift you belonged to the company and you were part of the machinery of getting the boxes into the storage unit or out of the storage unit, up to 100 employees on each of three shifts worked this way, and most bizarrely they were all controlled by a stocky little man who strutted a yellow footpath along the front edge of the shelving over-viewing everything, if he needed to speak to you he blew a football referees whistle and at the whistle everyone looked up to see if it was they that he needed to speak to, if it was then you drove your transporter to him.

It was a most bizarre scene and I've been in hundreds of such warehouses before but never one so regimented as this and the more you watched the more you watched in disbelief that no-one ever considered getting off their transporters, removing their "safety gloves" and their "safety glasses" and chinning the fat controller in one final sign-off - you won't be surprised to learn that I was there on behalf of an agency and all of the staff were theirs, I seriously doubt that any of them had anything like a permanent contract of employment.

Life in 2014...

It does raise the interesting question of whether advertising constitutes as - for want of a better expression - psychological assault.

It's easy to say, "Don't watch". But very often you aren't in control of the medium. Add then the fact that it is influencing your subconscious in ways you can neither detect nor grasp the full magnitude thereof.

One thing is for sure. Goebbels would have cut his right arm off in exchange for TV.

I've seen these types of warehouses a couple of years back, there was even a silly comedy film about it from the US some while back. In terms of picking/loading it's all very efficient, I banned the radio from all my work places, some people didn't like it, but about half were releived to be rid. As far as I'm concerned you're there to work and distractions are just that. People lose focus then they make mistakes and from mistakes means people can get hurt. Ensuring people have proper breaks was a massive thing for me, seen far too many organisations where staff just flip out/become disgruntled and/or make mistakes because they don't get proper breaks and carry on through because the work load distribution is uneven. Having somewhere nice to hang out for your break/lunch always improves things everywhere I've been and introduced it.

The only stupid thing here is the sloppy nature of addressing the staff in the wharehouse with a whistle

, Information via the console as an overider direct to the person needing to be addressed is far easier or even via a headset would be far more effective and less time wasting/distracting. Blowing a whistle is just a ridiculous way to communicate in this day and age and because of what it represents/how a whistle is used (shrill dictatorial noise) it can add certain negative effects on employees & the general working environment.
Your immediate thoughts on chinning the fat controller are fairly common just because of how he addresses his staff.

Given that the overwhelming majority of radio minutes are directed towards music whose practical purpose is to drive out conscious thought (in minds capable of such), engender pathetic notions of nostalgia and "make the day go quicker..." banning it sounds like a great idea.

At the very least it might excite anaesthetised minds into leaving a job which sounds like nothing short of Victorian drudgery.

The ultimate aim of tories and kippers in their quest to "reptriate laws from Brussels"

Not surprisingly I disagree with some of the points. The whistle thing is ludicrous and contacting via the screen would be much more appropriate.

It is well known that in most cases we lag behind the very best in terms of productivity, yet when someone tries to up the anti everyone is up in arms, you can't have it both ways.

The market is very competitive driving efficiency through the supply chain is one way of improving competitive advantage. In a distribution process like that what would you expect? Replace the machines with ladders and people?

The problem with the whistle is not so much the idiot blowing it, it's his senior managers who are allowing him to act like that.

I've often visited the Mercedes Benz factories in Germany and the first surprise was seeing vending machines on the shop floor dispensing bottles of beer. When I queried it I was simply told that "it's thirsty work and they know we prohibit anyone getting drunk on the job"

A change in management attitude is usually the first thing to improving efficiency

I agree - also its management's job to ensure processes are efficient and well thought out, you need to strike the right balance in the management/employees relationship. At the end of the day the employees are paid to do a job not to socialise, that is what they do outside of the working environment

I did some contract work over an extended period at a head office for one of the big 4 mobile phone companies and they offered their staff 'free vend' on the drinks machines (Fresh tea, fresh grind coffee etc)
It worked out to 7-8 free drinks per person per day on an average 7 hour day, that's not including the ridiculously priced barista bar that was always inundated breakfast/morning break, lunch and afternoon break. I timed the 'gatherings' at the vending machines alone (because I could) and I'd say they lost at least 50 minutes just in the time to get the drinks, have a chat and walk back to their station and a couple at closer to 80 minutes.
I've worked in a fair few large blue chip/FTSE 100 organisations and it's incredibly scary how truly incompetent all levels of managament & workforces are in these companies (& how ridiculously overpaid), it beggars belief some of the stuff that goes on. No wonder this country has been in the for so long and will continue to be so.
I got to know a bit about the goings on at BAE Brough nr Hull and I'm not surprised it went to the wall, jesus H it was a free for all!!

What's your opinion on cig breaks? Way back in my office days it would drive me potty watching smokers saunter outside for a smoke once an hour for 10-15 minutes while the rest of us carried on slaving, and then take a full lunch hour.

One girl started taking 'fresh air' breaks and was threatened was disciplinary.

Workshy and stunk of cig smoke.