Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Bentley Boy
12 Dec 09 16:31
Joined:
Date Joined: 01 Aug 08
| Topic/replies: 3,295 | Blogger: Bentley Boy's blog
Forget all this New Labour, Red Tory sh1te it's actually capitalism that's failing and crashing before us, the pursuit of profit regardless of the social implications is clearly flawed. What we need is a system based on need not greed , where all those that can must contribute, and extremes of wealth and poverty are unacceptable. We are all on this earth for a very short time and i for one find it unbelievable that some can have so much, yet others have so little and yet this system is deemed acceptable by so many. How can it be right that individuals can be worth billions yet some children due to circumstances of birth face hideous poverty and starvation just because they are unfotunately born to the wrong parents in the wrong country.
Capitalism is rotten and should rightly fail, surely a better way can be found that can at least make it unacceptable for such inequality to thrive.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 112
By:
madsimon
When: 12 Dec 09 16:33
again articulate but no substance in it.
By:
subversion
When: 12 Dec 09 16:34
capitalism and socialism/communism have gone directly head-to-head before

guess who won?
By:
Mister E
When: 12 Dec 09 16:35
Excellent post Bentley Boy
By:
madsimon
When: 12 Dec 09 16:35
if you are talking about this countyr it has never been more socialist with benefits meaning you don't actually have to work and huge amounts of regualtion in most areas of life

if you are talking about other countries -well the ones that have had a stable capitalist economies the longest are the ones that have leats people in poverty and also incidentally provide the best social safety net
By:
madsimon
When: 12 Dec 09 16:36
you need a lot of state bullying to force people to be the same and 'equal' -it leads to gulags in most cases
By:
sap
When: 12 Dec 09 16:42
Great post Bentley, sap is inspired.
By:
Bentley Boy
When: 12 Dec 09 16:43
Simon,
I know what your saying, but i really dont want to bully anyone, i'm not clever enought to know how to get it to work but that doesn't make the idea wrong.I may me a bleeding heart liberal but i still think the principal is correct and the cause beyond reproach and feel that the current wealth disparity worldwide should be unacceptable to all right thinking people.
By:
Bentley Boy
When: 12 Dec 09 16:46
Sap,
You're a Star.
By:
Ivor
When: 12 Dec 09 16:47
Crazy post from Bentley - a desirable but unachievable dream world.
We need a 'middle' way that rewards ambition and success enough to make it worthwhile but prevents the excesses of the super-rich.
By:
madsimon
When: 12 Dec 09 16:48
at the rich end in life it doesn't really matter if some people are worth billions as they are hardly spend a fraction of it before they die ,thus they use the worth to nuture the asset (usually shares in compnanies ). As compnaies provide many of the basics in life resonably well in most countires then whats the problem?

you only get to be worth billions by running a sucessful company which means providing a service people want or need.

these services would still need to be provided if there wer no such compnaies and hence you would have the lottery of unproved politicians running them (rather than proved sucessful entrpeneurs)
By:
Ivor
When: 12 Dec 09 16:48
oops - I think I agree with him LOL! :)
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 17:14
Bentley Boy 12 Dec 17:31

How can it be right that individuals can be worth billions yet some children due to circumstances of birth face hideous poverty and starvation just because they are unfotunately born to the wrong parents in the wrong country.


It's not. It's not capitalism that imposes border controls depriving the willing poor from a living. It's not capitalism imposing tarriffs on their goods. It's not capitalism seeking to restrict immigration. It's not capitalism thatrestricts an owner of land from using it to build much-needed housing. The best thing we could do is open our markets unconditionally, but governments prefer to restrict them and then offer them aid which is geared towards its own interests. It's not capitalism that save failed banks, it was government. We haven't tried capitalism yet, barely 60% or so. As usual, government is the problem.
By:
Lampus
When: 12 Dec 09 17:23
Great post BB
Nasty capitalism
Nice Socialism


Viva Jesus and golfjudge
By:
Bentley Boy
When: 12 Dec 09 17:42
Göring,
I naturally disagree, how can people make fortunes for producing nothing but paper profits but children have to scavenge on tips to earn enough to eat.I cannot see how the world can allow children and their parents go to bed hungry night after night while individuals are worth billions. I have no problem with rewarding skill and enterprise but nobody should be comfortable with these huge disparities in wealth, surely in 2009 no child should be hungry and not have access to education and basic utilities like clean water and basic sanitation, and a system that fails to provide these and capitalism is predominant deserves to fail.
By:
winningthought
When: 12 Dec 09 17:57
"But, but, but... there has never been a truely socialist society" - yeah, cause it dont work mate.

"We haven't tried capitalism yet", and why not? Because, like socialism, it doesn't work.
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 18:03
Firstly, don't discount, underestimate, or look down on "paper profits". "Paper profits" are a result of many things which exists to keep prices smooth, liquid and correct. They are the incentive to free resources from a dead business, cause the steadying of an economy by correctly raising or lowering its interest rates and many many more things. You can be sure that, in the absence of coercion, the transaction is beneficial to the people involved or they wouldn't be doing it. Secondly, disparities in wealth are also the incentives that keep people 'honest' at all levels of income. Don't blame the disparities, blame the governments keeping the poor as poor, not least ours. Thirdly, do not overestimate the number of "rich" people. For example, the recent 50% extra tax on bankers' bonuses (big story in the public eye) is announced by the government itself to bring in half a billion. Other commentators put it less and my calculation puts it at only 150mm or so.

I agree that the poor deserve a break, but don't take it out on the policies and individuals that create the wealth. There's not enough money among them to solve the problems in the first place and, if there were, you could only do it once before that wealth is never created again.

Let's admit the whole world into a free customs union with the country, hold two fingers up to the EU(SSR), get government out of the way and allow the poor to become richer.
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 18:04
winningthought 12 Dec 18:57

"We haven't tried capitalism yet", and why not? Because, like socialism, it doesn't work.


And how would we know?
By:
winningthought
When: 12 Dec 09 18:07
And how would we know socialism works? both are fine in theory, but neither seem to work in practice
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 18:08
We know it doesn't, don't we?
By:
winningthought
When: 12 Dec 09 18:09
we cant ever know for certain
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 18:11
Why not. It's not worked here, Sweden, Germany...
By:
winningthought
When: 12 Dec 09 18:13
True marxist theory has never been fully tried, just like Free Market Capitalism
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 18:16
Unless it's very unstable (making it unsavoury) then the October Revolution was a good approxiamtion, but if state control of resources (by the few, not the many) were a good idea, we'd have lost the cold war.
By:
winningthought
When: 12 Dec 09 18:41
"state control of resources (by the few, not the many)" - thats not what Marx had in mind with communism, just like Freidman et al wouldnt be confortable with many aspects of modern "captialism".

The point I am trying to make is quite simple. Neither social/economic model has ever been fully implimented as theory dictates, in fact, far from it. Personally, I can't see ture free market capitalism existing in my life time - we will make sure we mess it up well before then.
By:
winningthought
When: 12 Dec 09 18:46
"Let's admit the whole world into a free customs union with the country" - I couldnt agree more and have done for several years now, but it just isnt going to happen is it?
By:
flushgordon
When: 12 Dec 09 18:46
i am not against capitalism , manufacturing and production agriculture and other industry which produces a product which can be sold at a reasonable price which rewards the producer is an admirable goal.
what i am against are the shylock manipulaters of financial markets ,bankers etc human rights lawyers and all the other parasites who feed from human misfortune.
the labour party has fallen into bed with the city and the ideals of thatcherism , which have been shown conclusivley in wall street and the city and in banks and countries worlwide to have failed and have had to been given the kiss of life by a socialist system.
By:
the loser
When: 12 Dec 09 18:51
Oh for ffffff 's sake. More hippy twaddle. Jesus efffin' Christ.

Some people are greedy. They have existed every since they wanted a bigger mammoth's tusk than you had. It isn't ever going to be any different is it ?

Markets have been around ever since the first surplus of anything and a free market [ ideally of course ] or as free as you can get delivers maximum possible economic utility.

Uncontrollled anything is bad. The main aim and purpose of any political system should be to control the imperfections of Capitalism eg monopolies, cartels which may arise. This would / should have prevented Banks being allowed to get so big that they couldn't possibly be allowed to fail. All markets must have failures - it is implicit and essential. Small companies are taken over by larger companies. New companies enter a market and some must fail. Haven't you learnt from EVERY single economic event in history that State control doesn't work ?

There is nothing wrong in making a profit, and there is nothing wrong in making £ 100 squillion zillion thrillion pounds if you produce the right product at the right time. All countries will go through the sweatshop labour stage to produce goods that most people really don't need but that's huiman nature for you. Look around at Xmas markets, full of the most pointless tacky trash you've ever set your eyes.

Just be grateful that you live in a capitalist system powered by entrepreneurs who may have started with nothing but a work ethic and a lot of determination. The people who invented television and the transistor for example. You must allow people the chance to become very wealthy - you then hope and rely on the fact that it's unlikely that you will convert all your money into gold bars but will go out and spend it. This gives other people employment and distributes wealth. Although he is a flawed individual, Alan Sugar is an example of someone who started with nothing and flourished under capitalism. Clive Sinclair is another example.

Stop bleating about Capitalism, the main problem is that Government has been allowed to get too large and too remote from the people. They are the parasites who produce nothing and reward themselves from the wealth created by markets.
By:
Bentley Boy
When: 12 Dec 09 18:54
The Russian Oligarch's, a result of brilliance or a corrupt system that leaves millions starving?
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 19:03
winningthought 12 Dec 19:41

The point I am trying to make is quite simple. Neither social/economic model has ever been fully implimented as theory dictates, in fact, far from it.


I agree, but my point still stands that much closer approximations to Marx have been implemented and failed than to Friedman and they're close enough. If they're not close enough, then the theory isn't stable to small perturbations and so is an impractical model.


flushgordon 12 Dec 19:46

what i am against are the shylock manipulaters of financial markets ,bankers etc human rights lawyers and all the other parasites who feed from human misfortune.


We all manipulate financial markets when we make a loan, a deposit, an investment, in fact anything we do with money or even if we do nothing with it.

the labour party has fallen into bed with the city and the ideals of thatcherism , which have been shown conclusivley in wall street and the city and in banks and countries worlwide to have failed and have had to been given the kiss of life by a socialist system.

The capitalism didn't fail, the banks were about to go bust as they should, but the government failed to represent the people and intervened which is why it shouldn't have so much power.


the loser 12 Dec 19:51

Uncontrollled anything is bad.


Oh? I had a nice** with Mrs G earlier without much control. Controlled is better - by whom, to whose satisfaction and rules? If you don't stop others from doing something, then it's down to the two people involved in a contract and, if they do it free from "control" then you can be sure it's in their interests or they wouldn't do it. If they're not stopping others, then you can be sure they're not being disadvantaged thereby too.

The main aim and purpose of any political system should be to control the imperfections of Capitalism eg monopolies, cartels which may arise. This would / should have prevented Banks being allowed to get so big that they couldn't possibly be allowed to fail. All markets must have failures - it is implicit and essential. Small companies are taken over by larger companies. New companies enter a market and some must fail. Haven't you learnt from EVERY single economic event in history that State control doesn't work ?

You seem to be advocating state control and that it doesn't work in the same paragraph?


Stop bleating about Capitalism, the main problem is that Government has been allowed to get too large and too remote from the people. They are the parasites who produce nothing and reward themselves from the wealth created by markets.

Agreed with that.
By:
V4 Vendetta
When: 12 Dec 09 19:04
Bentley Boy 12 Dec 19:54

The Russian Oligarch's, a result of brilliance or a corrupt system that leaves millions starving?


A bit of both, but they're nearly all happier than under Lenin, aren't they?
By:
Ukmalllia
When: 12 Dec 09 19:28
Capitalism 100% will come to a end at some point.

It's based on constant growth which requires infinite resources when we are based on a planet with obviously limited space and finite resources.

Capitalism will fall before 2050, Im just not sure what's going to replace it..
By:
thankyoumugs
When: 12 Dec 09 19:31
capitalism is corrupt, business owners will use your labour and pay you peanuts . believing they are the ones who deserve all the profits for themselves. while you graft hard and put years of dedication into your work, you will be rewarded with sweet fcuk all/ thats capitalism at its best.
By:
the loser
When: 12 Dec 09 19:37
Over population and overconsumption are the sole reasons why the World will run out of enough water and space at any one time. You could have a perfectly functioning capitalist system based on recycling and modern technology if you had say 35 million in the UK instead of 75 million. You just need to ensure you produce the right ' stock ' by selective breeding in the ' Brave New World ' style.

Imagine the whole of Europe with half the population - the countryside could return to the UK and wild life could flourish.

You would of course need a large army and the best weapons to keep all the wogs out.
By:
Ukmalllia
When: 12 Dec 09 19:41
Without the population to do the dirty work for a pittance though, were would I get my latte ! :^0
By:
flushgordon
When: 12 Dec 09 19:44
how come you can say wogs but you cant say ** ,** ,poof or **?
By:
Larry's Codpiece.
When: 12 Dec 09 19:55
What we need is a system based on need not greed , where all those that can must contribute,

Amazing. Socialist in get the lazy feckers out of bed shocker.
By:
Larry's Codpiece.
When: 12 Dec 09 19:56
flushgordon

Happy now? You can say wog and poof. :)
By:
gus
When: 12 Dec 09 19:57
oh joy, and entire continent populated by 'the loser' clones ... would they have his sense of humour as well ... or is that too utopian an idea.
By:
flushgordon
When: 12 Dec 09 20:00
no i would never use those terms on our not quite the whole caucasian brotherhood or the shirtlifting jobby jabbers either.
Page 1 of 3  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com