Worldwatcher said <<China was the only one to try and contain it (population) for many years - with little success.>> With little success? How can you make such a claim when stats do not support you. Take China, India and the World population.

In 1960

China 667m
India 450m
World 3040m

In 2012

China 1350m growth 200%
India 1237m growth 275%
World 7000m growth 230%

If China's population had increased at the same rate as India's, it population in 2012 would have been 1830m but was in fact 480m fewer. Even based on the World population growth rate China's population if it had grown at the same pace would have stood at 1535m in 2012 but was actually 185m fewer. Whether the reductions in China's population are solely down to government intervention, I doubt it, but they must be at least partly responsible, would you not agree. Even at 185m less I would call it a success, for what ever reason

Saltpetre

I never suggested “homogeneity”

I said – “Clearly this is a simplistic presentation and there are a lot of nuances that would have to be considered. Linking executive pay to company’s lowest paid staff member, overall social responsibility and giving greater reward to the producers of GDP are just a few”.

I never said “no red tape”.

I said – “we would have no requirement for any pensions or the bureaucratic system and red tape that feeds on it’. My comment was specific to the existing pension schemes!

The rest you have concocted. I would not pretend to foresee where the economy would settle as current market forces would still be in play. The difference is there is full employment; no sit down money, no dole bludgers and the big end of town has limits.

Worldwatcher – Simplistic and idealistic yes. As I said above market forces are still in play. There are no free lunches as there is now and everyone has the opportunity of work. You get rid of the dirt poor and the filthy rich.

The rest is just waffle, conjecture and history.

Has been – If I was to stop thinking about worn out clichés, I wouldn’t be able to think about you!

I’m happy to spar with you on the big stage, not the side show.

Come on boys you have to do better than that.

Poirot
Ed obviously has no axe to grind, being the highest paid actor of 2014.
A little humour - even with an edge- does no harm.

Paul405
Yes I agree, China was successful in curbing population growth. I reread my post, which should have read a little success. Leaving out the a unintentionally changed the whole context of that sentence.

Producer,

There are two main reasons why your proposition is unworkable:

Firstly, it smacks substantially of communism - where the workers get a set 'living', and the big-wigs get to set the work programs and their own remuneration (even though this may be substantially less remuneration than the obscene salary/benefits 'packages' enjoyed by many current top Western executives/CEOs). The West has evolved a more open and competitive system, called democracy, and will not willingly move to anything less attractive.
(Also, I doubt the Union movement would be the least interested.)

Secondly, your proposition goes against the human mindset, and the world mindset, which is for most people to strive for the best they can achieve for themselves and their families. Few truly free and thinking people would readily accept the sort of limitations on their potential to achieve which your proposition ultimately entails.

When, or if, humanity as a whole was to move to adopt pure altruism as the primary driving force and universal charter for human existence, then, and only then, would there be any real chance to achieve the sort of 'equilibrium' your proposition suggests.

>The difference is there is full employment; no sit down money, no dole bludgers and the big end of town has limits.<

How do you propose to achieve 'full employment' and maintain productivity by lowering the salaries of top executives, managers and supervisors and passing on the resultant 'savings' to 'the workers'? Why should skilled and professional staff get the same rate as the floor sweeper? Where's the motivation to excel, to put in the hard yards? Or do you intend there be guards with guns and whips? (And chains on the doors?)

Your proposition is demonstrably unsound - at least for this 'evolution' of human existence.

Saltpetre,

"The West has evolved a more open and competitive system, called democracy, and will not willingly move to anything less attractive.
(Also, I doubt the Union movement would be the least interested.)"

I'd encourage you to to watch that little animated video too, which shows how the post war ethos of social democracy has been distorted in recent times in favour of the obscenely rich...and through which our communities suffer. I might add, the post-WWII years shaped the people who are seniors today. We're actually losing the fairness that pervaded those years.

http://www.moveon.org/share/72e232/hollywood-legend-ed-asner-has-outraged-republicans?rc=share-5393dd

We'll continue the shift backwards in our notion of civilsed society if the trend goes on.