Blairites staging a coup...

[UGagain]

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

The government creates the money we use in a physical form.

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).

But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something.

The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.

QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent.

The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

The net effect for people is the rich pay a considerable percentage of the nations taxes, proper people pay less, with a high proportion of homes receiving more back than they pay in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

[UGagain]

By the standards of most Brits he is a lefty loon, and for me at least I'd hoped we'd reached a point wherein Corbyn and those of a similar ilk would be confined to the SWP leaving Labour to go forwards as a Social Democratic party. Sadly instead the inmates have taken over the asylum and we're going to have to waste a lot of time going at least until the next general election it seems until there's a chance for some order to return. And I don't just blame Corbyn for this, but also those in the middle ground and to the right of the Labour party who are allowing us to continue without a credible opposition to the government.

In what way is he a lunatic?

Most of what he's actually said makes sense, and he is the leader of the UK's only mainstream socialist party...

What do you define as Social Democrat?

Oh, and mods: why is language like this allowed against the left, and not against the right?

On second thoughts, don't bother. You're both rather right wing...

He wants his left wing parties to be fiscally and economically identical to the right wing parties, just more progressive on social issues. He ignores the fact this is pretty much what we've had for the last 30-40 years, where many people feel (and statistics can back up) that during this time their position in society is worse off. The middle and lower classes have been pinched, while those at the very top have seen their wealth grow exponentially.

He wants society to work for the top 10% and anyone challenging that position is, apparently, a "left wing loony".

"It is what it is, chaps; accept your lot and don't you dare complain".

Bingo.

[Sandydragon]

You entire premise of "fairness' is based on the spurious assumption that the government requires tax 'income' to spend and therefore tax is a 'contribution' to the operation of the state.

It is an entirely false notion. The government creates the money that pays the taxes.

Pretending otherwise is futile.

The government creates the money we use in a physical form.

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).

But the government tends to avoid creating money without basing it on something.

The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.

QE is dangerous and is thus used sparingly.

QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?

The tax system is designed to be redistributive and does that to an extent.

The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

The net effect for people is the rich pay a considerable percentage of the nations taxes, proper people pay less, with a high proportion of homes receiving more back than they pay in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.

[Sandydragon]

Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.

Frankie Boyle

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-the-poor

Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.

Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

VAT is a sales tax.

i'm not sure we have any ownership taxes in the UK. There are disposal taxes - Capital Gains, Inheritance, property purchases (Stamp duty as it's known) etc - and obviously income taxes but I can't think of ownership taxes.

Council tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not an ownership tax, it's a residence tax.

[UGagain]

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).



The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.



QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?



The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.

Dude, you've said you want rational discourse here. But this doesn't come close. You're just throwing out words and phrases.

The UK government is the sole, monopoly issuer of pounds sterling.

But you appear to think that rich people are. That would be counterfeiting.

So square this circle.

[UGagain]

Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.

Frankie Boyle

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-the-poor

Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.

Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.

I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.

[UGagain]

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth.

Well no that's just not true.

Rich people don't just add to the numbers in their accounts. They wield power.

If you're happy to live in an oligarchy then you have plenty of options to move to.

Personally, I don't want to see the world return to feudalism.

And that IS where we are headed under the status quo.

[Stooo]

[quote="Sandydragon"
Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.[/quote]


No. If people have more money they SPEND more money thus creating a greater demand for goods and services.

[Zhivago]

Eagle was widely derided for not putting forward any policies at her campaign launch, but really I think everybody knows the kind of things she stands for, and she was wise not to mention any of them. Indeed, given the makeup of the electorate, the whole thrust of her campaign should be to try to stop people remembering what she represents, and ideally who she is.

Frankie Boyle

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-the-poor

Probably the Grauniad's best columnist these days.

Out of interest, do you regard Eagle as being on the left of the Labour Party, or is she a blairite? Genuine question, opinion seems split amongst people I talk to.

I think she's a repellant non-entity with no policies or principles who is on her way to an ignominious deselection.

...a Blairite then.

[onlynameleft]

The "rich" don't just have more money, they control a lot of essential infrastructure. They control food, energy, and housing. It's not just about tax.

Yes, they own property. M not sure how that distracts from the fact that the rich pay a large amount of money to the treasury.

Is ownership of property VAT exempt in any circumstance?

VAT on property is a massively complex subject. As a very broad rule, domestic property is exempt, commercial property is subject to an option to tax by the owner for the time being, if he opts to tax he can charge VAT on rent but can also recover VAT spent on provision of services for example.
SDLT is now charged on transactions, it is very different from StampDuty in nature, although this probably isn't apparent at domestic buying or selling level. It is basically a transfer tax payable to HMRC. There is no VAT on buying or selling property with limited exceptions.

[UGagain]

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.

This is the right in a nutshell.

They throw out these talking points that are meaningless.

[Zhivago]

The UK government is the monopoly issuer of pounds sterling in any form. Only government created pounds can settle tax liabilities or buy government bonds (that you call debt).



The pound is a sovereign, fiat, floating exchange rate, non-convertible currency. It is not 'based on' anything. The government creates money every time it spends. They create money when they pay your salary.

Vast amounts of money are created and destroyed every day of every week of every year.



QE is merely swapping treasury bonds for reserves. It is an asset swap, a reshuffling of the non-government's financial asset portfolio. Nothing more, nothing less. The effect is to drive down long term interest rates and is likely to contribute to deflation due to the loss of interest income to the private sector.

What makes you think it is 'dangerous' and why are you even mentioning it?



The tax system in the neoliberal era has been designed to be non-redistributive. The rich pay far less than they used to under a far far more successful political/economic regime.

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

[canta_brian]

"Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty."

Concentration of wealth to a smaller number of people is pretty much the same as the goverment wanting to run a surplus. Money from one part of the economy ends up sitting pretty much unused for long periods of time. Or even worse we could see what's happening in NZ whereby people are buying 2nd properties, and because house price inflation is so high they don't even feel the need to rent the houses out. Either way the money sits dead within the economy.

Think of it this way, do you think 1 person will spend £1,000,000 as quickly as 1,000 people will spend £1,000?

[Digby]

I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

[Digby]

Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

There was some scope to read the rules in a number of ways, but it'd have been more than a little wrong had he not been allowed to stand. The £25 fee to join as a voter makes sense too, the £3 nonsense was a nonsense.

[UGagain]

I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.

There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.

As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.

[Sandydragon]

Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

I wonder if they will regret the potential split of the anti Corbyn vote? It would have made sense for them to come to an agreement but it will certain,y make the next few months interesting.

[Sandydragon]

If the rich are getting richer than Croesus while we have significant unemployment, underemployment and working poor then they are clearly not paying enough.

If the government needs to supplement the wages of a significant proportion of the population that means the rich business owners aren't paying their employees sufficiently.

It's hard to see that the rich are being hard done by when you look at just those two facts alone.

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.

[Zhivago]

I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

In my ideal world, investments would be taken via loans at a minimum interest rate (to cover administration costs only). These loans would be provided by a mutual credit bank or credit union, democratically run by society as a whole. Something like that.

[Zhivago]

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.

Not in a deflationary economic environment. But obviously you must not print too much too quickly, but that's just a matter of governance.

[Zhivago]

Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

They use AV

[UGagain]

Minimum wage set by the government? In addition, surely you would understand that if wages went up whole scale so would prices?
Only happens if demand outpaces supply. And increase in minimum wage would not cause that.

Rich people getting richer is only a problem if you are against wealth. Personally I'm not provided it's lawfully made. Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.
I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

As for unemployment that has been lowering for some time. In fact in many parts of the country employers are desperate for staff, hence the need for immigrants from Europe.

Under Osborne the rich are paying more than ever before. The cut in the top rate of tax brought in more revenue, not less.
Source?

As for governments printing money, if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation. I'm well aware that a firm link to something intrinsic, like gold, is a thing of the past yet there are limits to what a government can freely do within the international system.
Simplistic waffle

Which brings us back to taxes (and borrowing) which are the means by which a government can raise money.They can also simply print it

Yes, they can simply print it. Do that too often and hyper inflation can be the result.

They do 'simply print' it (though the terminology is obsolete and emotive) every day of every week of every year.

If you are so worried about money creation, why aren't you screaming to shut down banks?

Hyperinflation is always preceded by a supply shock i.e. shortages of goods. You've just fallen for an irrational fable propagated by neoliberals.

[Digby]

I would say that wealth should be earned by working, not by owning money. Rich people often do not earn their wealth in this manner, it is normally the money itself that earns its

How does one raise funds for investment if money can't earn money? Is not the point of investing is to achieve a return on the investment? And you mayn't like some aspects of the primary and secondary markets when it comes to ownership, and transfer of ownership in capital but they prove useful for such things as pension funds for ordinary working people, bringing in investment, creating democracy of ownership... and not just for feathering the nest of the rich.

I'd understand an argument that wanted to see a lot more wealth made available to business investment, even to tax revenues, and certainly not to see the top 1% acquire still more wealth, I mayn't agree on all points looking to achieve such but I would at least understand it. However to go from that to money shouldn't earn money is baffling, it'd seem just much easier to look at taxing wealth if you wanted to seek a redistribution, but what's the model that should be sought if one considers all returns on investment usury transactions and that usury transactions should be banned?

Nearly all business investment is funded by bank loans these days.

There is a huge difference between rent seeking and investment.

As a keen student of Keynes and his work, you'd know that he spoke of euthanasia of the rentier.

Well yes we do use banks to make investments, though the secrets hardly out on that one. And whilst you may assign some morale value to some types of investment over others, and perhaps reasonably so at times, all investment seeks a return else it's just charity, and the systems we have in place which allow for the rent seeking provide liquidity to the investment side.

And yes I've read the odd bit of Keynes, and yes he had issues around the rentier, and inflation, and demand and full employment and so on. But it should be acknowledged that part of what's driving such thinking is not wanting the proles to rise up and seek to install a socialist state. Keynes wants the proles kept busy, kept happy, of course with a chance to progress and towards some notion of social fairness, but also so they don't mess up his nice lifestyle nor that of his equals - which by the by isn't a million miles away from Aristotle.