: And likewise they no longer stand against an old and corrupt order, demanding progress and democracy, liberty- now they are the established order, and the only way for them to go is down....
With your knowledge of English history you will appreciate the scorn (born of fear) poured upon factory men by the landed gentry. If the others saw to it that men without aristocratic pretensions could rise, then which order is the present crop to stand against? That would be floggin a dead horse. Ofcourse there are issues, especially statism, which such people could stand against, but instead when attacked (eg Gates) they have long drawn out legal procedures and meekly accept whats doled out to them, right or wrong. Perhaps the force of law is too frighteningly tight in modern states.
: Dicken's exposed bounderby's 'Self-madeness' I supsect a lot of these multi-millionaire self made men can't truly claim total, individual credit for their sucess, often theres a bag man or six who don't get credit. For the vast majority of the population, self-millionairedom is not an option, back in 1790, it looked like it was for a big swathe of the population petit-bourgoies and artisans), taht promise no longer owrks, it has run out of steam.
It hasnt, observe the bus and travel company in Scotland started by brother and sister (i forget the name) and the 700 other millionaires in your Times study who started off like the average Joe. As for 'bag men', there is always a group of capable people behind those millionaires. Are those people 'bag men'? The amount of millionaires in micosoft (due to Gates contracting with writers) suggests not, even better Carnegie used to make 'pomising' employing partners (ie stock owners) and made many men rich that way (eg Frick). Those people wouldnt have been able to do it without eachother, but it is the driving force of the 'millionaire businesspeople' that makes those partnerships possible. The chicken does come before the egg.
: I know it means more wealth, but its also another idicator of the problem, that new tech is the only way for the system to advance, it can't rely on new tech forever...
Why not? Where is the line which states mankind cannot advance the usefulness of a given material? There may be one, but why when every trend suggests otherwise.
: If Rover longbridge closes the effect on the British economy will be catastrophic, it'll devastate the Mid-lands- buttefly flaps its wings in China- hows about a sodding great dragon Flapping its Wings in Detroit?
Using the same logic, when a new company starts in Minnasota the friendly dragon waves to the people of Hull? Rover would not have existed had it not been baled out constantly by stolen property (tax) orchestrated by the governemnt. It would have died prior to BL days, or perhaps survived on its merits. Regardless the British economy would have been healthier if if was not drained to support dogs, that same money would have been invested into more promising business. In all likelihood those Rover employees could have been working for Midlands Future Electronis Plc. Supporting dead companies via tax backfires, I think you know that. The best support to gove is not the French favor/disfavor method (so in France the car industry is relatively strong, but many othes are enfeebled), but a seperation of govt from the boardrooms.
: But such speculation has effects over the whole market, as people perhaps invest more than they should, other firms get over valued, a lot of money gets lost that way, and it is just gambling- but the buggers have nowt else to do with it, can't invest it in production...
It is investment in that it enables those companies to raise more capital for investment themselves. Part of it specualtive gambling, and gamblers often lose - more fool them. Most investment into stock means the company can raise capital to improve itself.
: But its pretty bad for the people involved, wouldn't want my pension fund, health insurance, or whatever to get wiped out that way...
Corrections, like the famous 1987 one and the more recent one arent that bad. Within a year process were back to their previous high. Its a long term investment.
: Why, as I said before, there is no material interest conflict in teh latter, whereas in teh former, there is.
Because there is no claim to the person in the latter
: That we share diseases, that our bodilly integrity does not stop nor begin at our skin? Surely this undermines the whole basis of individuality..
Why? the individual is not defined by his diseases! The individual is the mind, no man can know the mind of another. Shared illness and molecules are not relavent. Even where one person is taught everything by anotherr, the teacher can still not know his mind, cannot lay a single claim to it.
: Except that you cannot exist apart from them, that they made you, surely the claim of community is the claim of self interest?
The claim of the community can only be the claim of a number of individuals in that group of people.