Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Bentley Boy
12 Dec 09 15:31
Joined:
Date Joined: 01 Aug 08
| Topic/replies: 617 | 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.
Pause Switch to Standard View Capitalism is the problem.
Show More
Loading...
Report Lampus December 12, 2009 5:23 PM GMT
Great post BB
Nasty capitalism
Nice Socialism


Viva Jesus and golfjudge
Report Bentley Boy December 12, 2009 5:42 PM GMT
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.
Report winningthought December 12, 2009 5:57 PM GMT
"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.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 6:03 PM GMT
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.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 6:04 PM GMT
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?
Report winningthought December 12, 2009 6:07 PM GMT
And how would we know socialism works? both are fine in theory, but neither seem to work in practice
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 6:08 PM GMT
We know it doesn't, don't we?
Report winningthought December 12, 2009 6:09 PM GMT
we cant ever know for certain
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
Why not. It's not worked here, Sweden, Germany...
Report winningthought December 12, 2009 6:13 PM GMT
True marxist theory has never been fully tried, just like Free Market Capitalism
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
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.
Report winningthought December 12, 2009 6:41 PM GMT
"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.
Report winningthought December 12, 2009 6:46 PM GMT
"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?
Report flushgordon December 12, 2009 6:46 PM GMT
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.
Report the loser December 12, 2009 6:51 PM GMT
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.
Report Bentley Boy December 12, 2009 6:54 PM GMT
The Russian Oligarch's, a result of brilliance or a corrupt system that leaves millions starving?
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 7:03 PM GMT
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.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
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?
Report Ukmalllia December 12, 2009 7:28 PM GMT
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..
Report thankyoumugs December 12, 2009 7:31 PM GMT
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.
Report the loser December 12, 2009 7:37 PM GMT
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.
Report Ukmalllia December 12, 2009 7:41 PM GMT
Without the population to do the dirty work for a pittance though, were would I get my latte ! :^0
Report flushgordon December 12, 2009 7:44 PM GMT
how come you can say wogs but you cant say ** ,** ,poof or **?
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 12, 2009 7:55 PM GMT
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.
Report Larry's Codpiece. December 12, 2009 7:56 PM GMT
flushgordon

Happy now? You can say wog and poof. :)
Report gus December 12, 2009 7:57 PM GMT
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.
Report flushgordon December 12, 2009 8:00 PM GMT
no i would never use those terms on our not quite the whole caucasian brotherhood or the shirtlifting jobby jabbers either.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 8:01 PM GMT
Ukmalllia 12 Dec 20:28

Capitalism 100% will come to a end at some point.

It's based on constant growth


Is it? Why do you say that? It's based on financial freedom.
Report gus December 12, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
"O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in't!"

Soma anyone?
Report Dr J December 12, 2009 8:03 PM GMT
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.

Fair play to you on this front, Goring.

You'll never be the poster boy of the Right with views like that, but at least you're following Capitalism through to its logical conclusion.

(The bail-out remains your blind spot, but we've all got one of those, I suppose...)
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 8:03 PM GMT
thankyoumugs 12 Dec 20:31

capitalism is corrupt, business owners will use your labour and pay you peanuts


Not unless you willingly work for them.

believing they are the ones who deserve all the profits for themselves.

Which they clearly don't or they wouldn't pay you for your labour.

while you graft hard

or whinge about on strike turning up late.

and put years of dedication into your work, you will be rewarded with sweet fcuk all/ thats capitalism at its best.

You're rewarded with your salary every month or you wouldn't do it.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 8:05 PM GMT
Dr J 12 Dec 21:03

(The bail-out remains your blind spot, but we've all got one of those, I suppose...)


Yours is reading my policy on that matter. :)
Report flushgordon December 12, 2009 8:08 PM GMT
and what about the land you were refused planning on goring!
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
What about it? I'd like to build houses on it and the state restricts my rights. As usual government is the problem.
Report flushgordon December 12, 2009 8:13 PM GMT
yes but thats your agenda .
Report Dr J December 12, 2009 8:13 PM GMT
You're rewarded with your salary every month or you wouldn't do it.

As you know, the labour market doesn't always have the luxury of saying 'no'.

A thirsty peasant will work ten hours for a jug of water if (s)he has no other option. The reason that government intervention is necessary is to stop such exploitation. The market cannot be left to its own devices because the market sh*ts all over those at the bottom.

You know this, Goring. You're not stupid.
Report flushgordon December 12, 2009 8:14 PM GMT
so you will build social housing?
Report thankyoumugs December 12, 2009 8:15 PM GMT
twisted my words to fit your views, i know from bitter personal experince, the way business owners operate and most of them are cunning sharks and corrupt. reap rewards from sweat and blood.

believing they have superior place in ladder of life , when really they are ** lowlifes. and they lose out in the end. being greedy brings its own downfalls. proven time and time again.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 8:21 PM GMT
flushgordon 12 Dec 21:13

so you will build social housing?


I won't build anything apparently, but I'd build whatever makes me the most money. (Coincidentally, that would be where the greatest shortage was which is why it would make the most money).


Dr J 12 Dec 21:13

As you know, the labour market doesn't always have the luxury of saying 'no'.

In which case it is probably overpaid even without a minimum wage imposed.

A thirsty peasant will work ten hours for a jug of water if (s)he has no other option.

Because a jug of water is worth more than a tonne of Gold to said peasant (and Gordo too given what he sold it for).

The reason that government intervention is necessary is to stop such exploitation.

It seems to me that the company providing the opportunity is also being "exploited" as I can't imagine employing thirsty peasants would be its first choice.

The market cannot be left to its own devices because the market sh*ts all over those at the bottom.
You know this, Goring. You're not stupid.


It's because I'm not stupid that I know that's not the case.
Report V4 Vendetta December 12, 2009 8:27 PM GMT
thankyoumugs 12 Dec 21:15

twisted my words to fit your views,


I didn't twist any of your word, just replied to them.

i know from bitter personal experince, the way business owners operate and most of them are cunning sharks and corrupt. reap rewards from sweat and blood.
And employees strike and turn up late and go home early and steal from their employers and leave if someone else offers them more money... Yes, so people look after themselves - that's how optimal allocation occurs.

believing they have superior place in ladder of life , when really they are ******* lowlifes. and they lose out in the end. being greedy brings its own downfalls. proven time and time again.


What does it matter what they believe? Some people believe in God, but I'd still buy a paper or work for them all other things being equal.
Report zilzal1 December 12, 2009 9:14 PM GMT
I dont remember them climbing over the Berlin wall the other way!!!
Report Arsenal Oldie December 13, 2009 7:45 AM GMT
The normal cliche applies - "capitalism is a bad system, but it is much better than anything else humanity has come up with"
Report Sir Denis Eton-Hogg December 13, 2009 12:49 PM GMT
:^0 ^^^^^^^

how long has capitalism been around???? a blink of an eye in terms of human history and already we're fcked because of it. It is simply a way of using up the earth's precious resources as quickly and wastefully as possible
Report noddys ryde December 13, 2009 12:58 PM GMT
Tribalism is doing wonders for Africa
Report Sir Denis Eton-Hogg December 13, 2009 1:07 PM GMT
those tribes will be around for thousands of years after the end of capitalism
Report unbiased December 13, 2009 1:34 PM GMT
Simple test.Give a selection from different classes a £1000 and watch the results.Check on them after a fortnight,month,3months,interesting.
Report V4 Vendetta December 13, 2009 1:36 PM GMT
Sir Denis Eton-Hogg 13 Dec 14:07


those tribes will be around for thousands of years after the end of capitalism


And you think we'll die out because of what Brown did? I don't think it's that bad.
Report mightymoyes December 13, 2009 1:43 PM GMT
anarchism is the answer, unfortunately its unworkable at present.
Report Chippie in Whitehall December 13, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
Saved Bentley from working underground all his life and dying at 50.
Report Bentley Boy December 13, 2009 5:42 PM GMT
:0
Report Arsenal Oldie December 13, 2009 6:00 PM GMT
Capitalism has obviously has brought massive quality of life improvements to many - but it's not fair in the way it works.

But before junking it, a new system has to be devised. And anything that promises a comfortable life without having to work hard is prone to failure due to human nature (socialism/communism).
Report Get me a drink December 13, 2009 9:42 PM GMT
Unrestrained capitalism results in things like 8 year old boys being sent up chimneys to clean them, or 5 year olds making £100 trainers for 10p a day.

We need social rules to stop exploitation, yet allow businesses to flourish, so a compromise somewhere between socialism and capitalism is the best route for the majority of humanity, imo.
Report Dr J December 14, 2009 9:56 AM GMT
Unrestrained capitalism results in things like 8 year old boys being sent up chimneys to clean them, or 5 year olds making £100 trainers for 10p a day.

Goring replies:

There's nothing coercing those children up the chimneys; they could always choose to do something different, like starve to death. If there was a [i]shortage of chimney sweeps, like there's currently a shortage of top bankers, they'd get paid loads. Those that can multi-task (say, by making Nikes while sweeping the chimney) would justify a fat bonus too....[/i]

;)
Report V4 Vendetta December 14, 2009 11:19 AM GMT
Not quite, Dr J.

Get me a drink 13 Dec 22:42

Unrestrained capitalism results in things like 8 year old boys being sent up chimneys to clean them, or 5 year olds making £100 trainers for 10p a day. We need social rules to stop exploitation, yet allow businesses to flourish, so a compromise somewhere between socialism and capitalism is the best route for the majority of humanity, imo.


We need rules that prevent children from being abused, that's not an excuse for socialism.
Report Lampus December 14, 2009 11:21 AM GMT
Goring prince of nastyness
anyone feel sorry for on Christmas day
I don t
Report Lampus December 14, 2009 11:22 AM GMT
For him
Report V4 Vendetta December 14, 2009 11:56 AM GMT
Unlike you whom many.
Report alfie255 December 14, 2009 9:18 PM GMT
Funny how socialists who strive for equality of opportunity are labelled as naive and dreamers for chasing an impossible dream, yet people like Goring actually think completely deregulated capitalism will ever come to fruition without anything being said.
Report V4 Vendetta December 14, 2009 9:19 PM GMT
Why do you say that?
Report Dr J December 15, 2009 3:42 PM GMT
Because it's true?
Report blackburn1 December 15, 2009 3:44 PM GMT
We're about to witness very soon what happens when the state promises to look after its citizens for life.
Report V4 Vendetta December 15, 2009 4:24 PM GMT
I would be a good reason, Dr J. I'm wondering what makes him think that it is.
Report alfie255 December 15, 2009 8:46 PM GMT
Well for a start you don't believe in 'no government', you believe in a hollow state with a judiciary, army and police force. So, in contradiction to your oft-cited claim that government is the problem, it seems to me that the only problem is government that doesn't directly benefit you.
Report Dr J December 15, 2009 8:51 PM GMT
Goring nailed.
Report Ivor December 15, 2009 8:58 PM GMT
Jesus!
Report V4 Vendetta December 16, 2009 11:53 AM GMT
Alfie - the question was why you think that I think it will come to fruition. (Dr J - read more carefully)
Report V4 Vendetta December 17, 2009 12:57 PM GMT
Alfie 'nailed'?
Report alfie255 December 17, 2009 1:24 PM GMT
Sorry Goring, i'd missed this. Apologies if you don't believe it will come to fruition, but you still preach it- when i do the same about equality of opportunity/distribution of wealth etc, i get called a dreamer, the same accusation is never levelled at you.

You're still a hypocrite though.
Report V4 Vendetta December 18, 2009 11:12 AM GMT
That's ok, thanks. Why am I a hypocrite exactly?
Report alfie255 December 18, 2009 12:18 PM GMT
Because you claim government is bad but in your ideal system it would still exist, seems a bit strange to me.
Report V4 Vendetta December 18, 2009 12:39 PM GMT
I think you've misinterpreted my statement, "As usual, government is the problem".

The "problem" is that there's too much of it, not that it exists at all.
Report V4 Vendetta December 18, 2009 12:39 PM GMT
Perhaps I should change it to, "As usual, too much government is the problem" to be clearer.
Report Dr J December 18, 2009 1:00 PM GMT
How about "Too much government is the problem, unless they're bailing out me and my clueless banker buddies"...?
Report V4 Vendetta December 18, 2009 1:11 PM GMT
Because a) too much government led to the need to bail out the clueless segment of the bankers and b) I nor my institution was bailed out so it wouldn't be accurate.
Report Ivor December 18, 2009 1:16 PM GMT
You're GUILTY Goring - now what is it you've done wrong please?
Report grappler December 29, 2009 6:45 PM GMT
never ventured onto this forum before. surprised by the colossal ignorance, stupidity and naivete on display. it is like a sixth-form debating society. embarrassing. heres some basic info for the non-thinkers among you;

there is no such thing as 'capitalism'. what thickos like bentley call capitalism is simply the way we (europeans and north americans/australasia) have evolved. trade, rule of law, property rights and notions of human rights are what you call 'capitalism'. marx and his idiot followers, who poisoned the minds of generations have turned it into a bogey-word. hands up anyone who can estimate the human misery, death and environmental catastrophe reaked by 'socialism'. a conservative 100m murdered in the 20th century alone.

the apotheosis of human existence is western, christian-derived liberal democracy.

most of the rest of the world is a giant khazi because their 'cultures' have been restricted by religion (why is every islamic country a disaster?) and extremely nasty cultural practices that did not occur in europe even during dark ages. it is not the result of 'imperialism' or 'exploitation'.
Report blackburn1 December 30, 2009 8:06 AM GMT
grappler seems a good lad, the luvvies wont like him though
Report V4 Vendetta December 30, 2009 8:38 AM GMT
I'm sure Lampus will set him straight.
Report Dr Crippen December 30, 2009 8:52 AM GMT
grappler seems a good lad, the luvvies wont like him though

I dont think anybody else will either if he carries on like that
After reading his first paragraph Id got him down as poor mans Orioles.
After reading the rest Ive got him down as
Report V4 Vendetta December 30, 2009 9:59 AM GMT
Mmm, sounds a bit fishy.
Report grappler December 30, 2009 3:25 PM GMT
only when roused Dr.

usually content meself attacking the twerps on the horse racing and rugby forums.

how's ethel?
Report Dr J December 30, 2009 3:32 PM GMT
what thickos like bentley call capitalism is simply the way we (europeans and north americans/australasia) have evolved. trade, rule of law, property rights and notions of human rights are what you call 'capitalism'.

Call it what you want, it benefits only the rich and is a completely flawed economic model.
Report MRGRUMPY1 December 30, 2009 3:32 PM GMT
^ ffs, that's all we need. A serial attacker.
Report A.H HUNTER esq. December 30, 2009 3:44 PM GMT
He is a janitor at a Uni somewhere. Never had a real job or business ,hence the bitterness at missing out . In our society everybody has a CHANCE ;) . The Leftie /Commie utopia is a place where nobody has a chance,equality .
Report sfc1976 December 30, 2009 3:45 PM GMT
Call it what you want, it benefits only the rich and is a completely flawed economic model.

It's nearly as bad as Socialism/communism in that sense.
Report A.H HUNTER esq. December 30, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
The Leftie /Commie utopia is a place where nobody has a chance,equality .



and we all know who the winners are in such a utopia , The Leftie/ commie politicians ;) ,make sense ?.
Report sfc1976 December 30, 2009 3:50 PM GMT
Exactly, they live in their palaces while the population starves. But its ok, as long as the misery is EQUALLY shared.
Report grappler December 30, 2009 3:57 PM GMT
' benefit only the rich'. depressing drivel. is that what you learned in sociology class? the third world would decamp en masse to 'capitalist' countries if they could. it grants opportunities for self-advancement denied to them in their homelands. look at the number of people who've turned up in norf america with nowt, and done well for themselves. where would obarmy be if his ancestors had stayed in kenya? even money he'd be dead.
Report Dr J December 30, 2009 4:00 PM GMT
Exactly, they live in their palaces while the population starves. But its ok, as long as the misery is EQUALLY shared.

*yawn*

My idea of left-wing ideology is to tax the rich a little more in order to give those born poorer a fairer chance of achieving something in life.

Hardly any of the forum Lefties are sympathetic to communism - we'd just like to see the markets better regulated and the wealth distributed differently.

It's all about raising standards, and it's a shame that the dim right-wingers can't get this 'misery sharing' mantra out of their heads.
Report sfc1976 December 30, 2009 4:08 PM GMT
But you do not raise standards and increase opportunity by high levels of taxation. I suggest you get this mantra out of your head. The logical outcome of your arguments is that you'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less rich.
Report Iwantyourmoney December 30, 2009 4:08 PM GMT
Come off it

NuLiars have tried to share the wealth and all they did is share the misery.

:( :(

You must admit that you are a fantasist?
Report sfc1976 December 30, 2009 4:11 PM GMT
You must admit that you are a fantasist?

Thats the problem for the left, their theories may well appear attractive in a text book to impressionable middle class students, but have failed everywhere they have been implemented in practice.
Report grappler December 30, 2009 4:27 PM GMT
my dear d.

the prob is that the working class (i'm one btw) have been degraded by excessive welfare and state intervention. my estate had zillions pumped into it, brand new houses built and all sorts of training courses were offered, free, but the real problem was apathy and poverty of aspiration, not one of cash.

the collapse of the education system and the anti-intellectualism of the so-called 'poor', who should have most to gain from it is profoundly depressing. the politicisation of education has also been a calamity. how can a child go through 10 years of formal education and still not be able to read and write? large numbers of schools are now holding pens for feral children.
Report A.H HUNTER esq. December 30, 2009 4:27 PM GMT
More money = raised standards = 1 + 1 = 3 ;) .
Report V4 Vendetta December 30, 2009 4:33 PM GMT
sfc1976 30 Dec 17:08

But you do not raise standards and increase opportunity by high levels of taxation. I suggest you get this mantra out of your head. The logical outcome of your arguments is that you'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were less rich.


This is the point that the well-meaning left always fail to see. Obsessing on misleading measures like "the gap" and the politically manipulated "poverty line" miss the point that the freer economies have a richer poor. For a simple explanation extended once to the 'liberal' Simon Hughes, watch the fingers closely in this explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
Report A.H HUNTER esq. December 30, 2009 8:07 PM GMT
Share markets recovering nicely ;) Capatalism led Eau Naturelle .
We will recover and be stronger,10 years plus of Tory rule to look forward to :^0 :^0 . Things can only get better after this shower .
Report A.H HUNTER esq. December 30, 2009 8:08 PM GMT
How the flip do we pay off all the debts without it ? .
Report flushgordon December 30, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
only because of a socialist nationalisation of half the banks you pompous know all no feck all retarded inbred incestuous sheepshagger.
Report sfc1976 December 30, 2009 8:10 PM GMT
'New Labour, Old Danger' said the Tory billboards in the 1997 election. How true they were.
Report sfc1976 December 30, 2009 8:14 PM GMT
flushgordon 30 Dec 21:10


only because of a socialist nationalisation of half the banks you pompous know all no feck all retarded inbred incestuous sheepshagger.


Looks like White Lightning must be on special down Lidl tonight.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com