THIS THREAD IS INHABITED BY PERSONS THAT SPAM-OUT COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT SPAM!!
BUT THAT'S OK IN ONE SENSE AS IT MEANS WE CAN SEE WHAT OPINIONS ARE TRYING TO BE CENSORED BY THOSE WHO DOUBTLESSLY WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY SUPPORT FREE-SPEACH!! [WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO NOT!!]
Britain is going down the road of economic fascism. And people denied truth of our world by the "news".
I wonder if I could challenge status quo and notions that may be evolved from deception and ignorance. At the very least for your children and for all of us - we are in danger from what we are denied.
Please watch Dr Gabor Mate here on youtube. A number of interviews challenge the dubious nature of peddled "reality". Please - for the vulnerable - wake up.
To any Americans against Obama's healthcare bill. Or anyone against national/socialized/socialist/'communist' healthcare. The U.K's NHS is the 2nd best healthcare service in the world both in value for money and care quality. 2nd to whom.... Northern Ireland's almost identical health service. And it covers everyone, even if your just visiting, which is rather nice. SO FUCK THE TORIES , FUCK THE REPUBLICANS. Healthcare is a right, not a price I need to pay.
@TheHarryButtery Great Britain= 88,745 miles and 60 million people
USA= 3.79 million square miles and 312 million people.
Washington does not have the resources do give universal healthcare to everyone. It would not work for us. Even the CBO declared it would cost 1 trillion dollars to fund. I believe in less government intervention, however light regulation will be needed to stop monopolizing health care companies. It may work for you, but not for us. Were in Debt! We cant just tax the rich!
@TheHarryButtery By the way in the US the top 1% pays for 22% of USA taxes. Bottom 40% pays 10%. Who says America doesnt tax the rich!? When economy goes bad, people complain that the govt should fix it, When It Was the Govt Who Got Them In Their Fiscal Situation!
Capitalism and Corporatism are polar opposite, and thats where D.C. has failed. Quit the lobbying in politics, quit inefficient govt plans, quit govt bailouts, and vote RON PAUL! lol
Given that the top 1% pay such a high %age of the overall tax collected; does this not suggest to you that in spite of Romney et al ONLY paying 15% tax on his millions he "earns" [although earns isn't really what he does IS IT!!] that the top 1% are actually disproportionately creaming-off more than their fair share of any any growth in the economy!?
PS - & YES!! the rich should at the very least pay tax at the same rate as everyone else!!
@pinickityme No its not lies. The rich in America pay i think 32% of their income to taxes. The top 1% do pay for 22% of Americas taxes, you cant ignore that fact just because it isnt what you believe. Romney is a dousche lobbyist and should pay more than 15%. As should all US politicians. Ron Paul is the only candidate that votes no on congressional pay raise and doesnt take out of a govt pension plan, and even gives 1/3 of his paycheck back to the US treasury, and doesnt lobby.
I DO believe the top 1% pay 22% of the US tax take!! But if you THINK Romney is so much in the minority [which I doubt] then prove it!! Let's have ALL the tax returns of ALL the top 1% then eh!?
Moreover, IF they pay such a high proportion of the tax take then don't you think that means they are creaming of a disproportionate %age of the growth of the US economy!!
During the last 30 years only the top 1% have seen an increase in real terms in their income!! Explain that!?
@pinickityme Umm NO. All income brackets have seen a rise in income in real terms. Moreover top 1% have high mobility. People who are in 1% today, were not in the 1% 30 years ago.
And you're arguing we should lower everyone's tax rate to 15% then I agree.
Is that so; whilst the figures suggest that the skilled workforce have seen a real terms pay rise [10 -15%] it seems that the unskilled have taken a hit but that the top 1% have seen an have seen their wage packages grow at an extraordinary rate.
@pinickityme And why does it matter how much the income of top 1% has gone up?? I already explained to you the income mobility. Both the real income and standard of living of the lower class have also gone up.
I'd not give it a second thought IF ONLY they would pay the same rate of taxation as the rest of us. But instead the most of them pay weaselly accountants to find any/every tax loophole to avoid tax as well as evading tax.
In the UK it is estimated that the exchequer looses as a consequence of the tax avoiding/evading super-rich £120bn EVERY YEAR!! & from the bond-market we're borrowing about £160bn. If they paid-up the bond-market would not have it hands round our bollocks!!
@pinickityme I hate romney so I dont think hes in the minority. And I would agree with you that it is the middle class that needs to be growing and not so much the rich, but then again if more people are getting rich then i support that too. My thing is, and im not saying you believe this, is that you cant just tax the rich into submission to bring people out of poverty. People need to offer something to society before they are given free money.
It's maybe that we're more in agreement than disagreement; although I don't think that asking the rich to pay tax at the same rate the rest of us is taxing them into submission.
What I find most distasteful is that the rich have to be bribed to not bugger-off to some tax-haven with "their" money, with the offer of low tax rates & scams they can make use of when they actually made said money during the boom years & won't dip into their pockets when so many are now feeling the pinch.
@mtstatehk14090914 Wouldn't the rich just move to where there is little or no tax as they always have?
What is the point of taxing the rich, when they actually invest in productive segments of the economy, while the middle class ties up most of its wealth in housing and takes on debt to do it? Going into debt to buy ever bigger houses doesn't really help the economy.
But doesn't that say more about the morality of the rich who would put their boot on our necks so [by threatening to move to a tax haven], in spite of how they [generally speaking] made "their" money with our help during the boom years & won't now pay even the same tax rate as we do nor dip into their pockets to help out!?
But yes, you make a good point re: people not looking after themselves & the rush to buy bigger property which was ever a bubble waiting to burst.
@pinickityme No, it doesn't. Not everyone moves. Before Thatcher, the Duke of Westminster was paying at a 90% tax rate. Roger Moore moved, but remained popular. Who wouldn't move, except for someone with strong ties?
About two-thirds of the rich are self-made. You make it sound like they succeeded by exploiting the common man, not creating jobs.
Even you you are paying at 30% and the rich at 25%, 25% of £10M is £2.5M. 30% of £50K is only £15K. If they employ you, they pay your tax too.
It's called progressive taxation & to my way of thinking I think it is the best way to provide for the whole of society. So we do indeed agree.
PS - how goes the debate in the US re: low tax [especially for the rich] v progressive tax? & what do think will be the outcome of the next presidential election?
@pinickityme The candidates are talking about ending the big govt bailouts to big businesses, lowering taxes for everyone, and cutting govt spending, But I cant believe any of them except for Dr. Paul. So Ron Paul is getting my vote. Gingrich is a lobbier, Romney has a poor record as governor, and Perry is just a straight up liar. Ron paul is the only one who has never voted to raise taxes. How about in England? Im thinking about visiting this summer!
@TheHarryButtery After introduction of Medicare & Medicaid 50 years ago (making healthcare mostly public & partially monopolistic) prices went up 7-10 times! I suggest you read this how government "solved" healthcare freenation(dot)org/a/f12l3.html Just copy&paste in ggle.
Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline. Free-Markets are very dangerous and allow profit to be made from EVERYTHING! War torn countries, tsunami ravaged coastlines. You name it some greedy bugger wants every penny they can squeeze out of it. This meagre comment doesn't come close to the outright disgusting lengths people have gone to make money out of disaster. £15 on that book will be the best money you will spent in a long time.
@TheHarryButtery Good God almighty! Tell me there champ did you just gobble up Naomi Klein's version of history or did you bother to fact check or read any of the refutations and negative reviews? Of course you didn't. For starters I have a 1 star review on Amazon under the name T.John
And as far NHS, a simple google search of "NHS wait times" is enough to debunk your claim of "2nd best healthcare". If central planning worked, you would be speaking Russian.
NHS waiting times have risen to unacceptable levels again ONLY since the Con/[Lib] government.
PS - Long unacceptable waiting times also were the trademark of the pre '97 Con government as they desperately underfunded it so that it might die-a-death-of-a-thousands-cuts & hence be ripe for privatisation.
@TheElasticJesusRez Umm NO you don't. The population of England is 50 million. You have knowledge of your own experience. You don't have the statistical knowledge for the rest of the other 50 million. Try again.
@TheElasticJesusRez 64% is very low. Only 9% is "somewhat dissatisfied" & 4% "very dissatisfied" with their private health insurance in the US. Source: Abt SRBI poll for Time.
"Number waiting over four hours in casualty soars by 40% in 1 year" - DailyMail, 27th January
"Quarter of a million still waiting to be treated after over a year" - The Telegraph, 17th Nov 2011
NHS is highly inefficient and can easily cut $32 billion - McKinsey report, funded by NHS.
How dissatisfied are those that work who cannot afford private health insurance in the US but do NOT qualify for any form of Medicaid? as opposed to those that have expressed an opinion on the private health insurance they have which I'm sure is pretty good if you can afford it!!
@pinickityme Do you honestly believe health care is going to save you? Just eat well, drink less, smoke less, and exercise more and you eliminate most potential health problems. By the time you're running to the doctor, it's pretty damn late in the game. Most illnesses are preventable by what the patient does, not the doctor. If we got rid of health insurance, people might get scared and actually pay attention to their lifestyles.
Thatcher's interpretation of Socialism - "the poor-poorer and the rich-poorer"
Tony Benn's interpretation of Socialism - "Corporations should be taxed more for the benefit of the wider public"
Conclusion:
Our totally free-market doesn't work as corporations and banks make business of finding there way around taxation problems (example Vodafone £6Bn in unpaid tax). To what degree capitalism should mix with socialist ideals is up for debate.
(We could start by nationalising the public banks)
@SpidermanInLondon Did you read the bull you just wrote??You contradicting yourself, first by saying:"Our totally free-market"-you must live on Mars or even further,coz most ecenomies are centrally controlled including yours.And"free market doesnt work as corporations and banks make business"Means in current socialist system politicians&rich (banks&corporations)take advantage of ordinary people.I suggest you find out what is happening around you before you make fool of urself.
We need one hundred Margareth Tatcher in the western countries right now to save ourself from socialism. Socialism = work from january to july to feed the parasites (state empoyees) + permanent economic recession and bankruptcy. If not immediately cut public spending, China and India will destroy our economies.
@TheElasticJesusRez I agree with you: you have to give taxpayers' money to the army, police, firefighters, managers of street lighting and so on. But we must not entrust to the state, which is wasteful by nature, the services that the private sector can provide better and cheaper. The trains in Britain are private and should be okay, I guess. We have no money to pay people to dig holes and cover them. John Maynard Keynes go to hell!!!!!!!!!
We can argue all day about economics and politics but I think a fair and decent society is down to one, and one thing only: the type of people running the show - whether it be government or business.
If everybody were like Bill Gates - fine.
If everybody were like Fred Goodwin - then fuck off.
As long as industry understands that the workforce is an advantage not an impediment then the world would be much happier place (and prosperous) place.
Your statement should be reversed: As long as the workforce is aware that capital is an asset and not an impediment then the world would be a much happier place (and prosperous) place.
Say goodbye to that charlatan of Marx: the capitalists are not "thieves of surplus value," but the creators of wealth for all.
If the inventor invents with EASE, but doesn't have the strength to work the machine, if the worker works with EASE, but doesn't have the intelligence to invent the machine, if both are happy and agree that one cannot work without the other - that they share the reward equally - then who the fuck are you to say otherwise?
Or does Liberty and Choice only count if it suits Wall Street?
And say goodbye to that scoundrel of Mill: no need to "redistribute wealth" but to create them.
Marghareth is right: it is better if it increases the gap between rich and poor.
If it doubles my poor wages and doubles the bank account of Bill Gates, the gap between me and Gates increases in mathematical terms, but I'm richest.
Margaret Thatcher was the greatest leader Britain ever had, she is respected throughout the world. Without her UK would be in the land of dinosaurs still producing coal nobody needs, certainly not those who care about the environment. From an Italian.
How about physics, biology, chemistry, geosciences and climatology?
Sorry but I didn't realise 'Macro-economics' was an indivisible law of Time and Space that couldn't be dissected, rearranged, or indeed ripped apart as nothing more than an anthropogenic solution to an anthropogenic problem.
@TheElasticJesusRez The answer is simple: i can tell you how macroeconomics proves her argument reasonable. Can you prove her argument right with chemistry? I think not my friend.
No, but I could probably prove it wrong with biology AND Chemistry. Try base acids that eventually evolved into human beings that realised after Toba and the 'Bottlenecking' of the human race that altruism - working together for the common good - was the best way to survive.
Alas, 70,000 years later they regressed into God(s)-fearing idiots, adopted a pyramidal elitist system, and have been travelling the slippery slope of savagery ever since.
@TheElasticJesusRez nice you proved why altruism exists..i don't see how that is relevant to this video where thatcher describes why direct socialism will never work and how decreasing the economic chasm between the poor and the rich will not solve the economic situation of the poor..
If you can find anyone arguing for "state/worker ownership of the means of production", then who are they?
whilst most of us NOT advocating unregulated free-market capitalism are merely arguing for ethical-regulated-capitalism to underpin a society wherein some socilaised services are provided so that the less well-off/vulnerable are not systematically shafted [especially during an economic downturn].
I have a question for you. Can you refute your propositions? I mean is it possible to refute the macroeconomic guesses? How is the refutation done, deduction. What is your ontology and your epistemology. This for the benefit of my understanding of psychology and logical inference.
@williamgrozny So after four lines of trying to make yourself sound intelligent by using sophisticated words, your question can be summed up with "can you prove what you said". Everyone knows Thatcher did everything to decrease disoccupation, from the abolition of sindicates to her disoccupation standoff. If you open any macroeconomics book, flip to the section on the Phillips curve and you'll understand why. I'm not here to teach you lessons.
I asked you what do you know and how do you know it. I want to know what is the basis for theories you love.Getting published in a book is not proof. What about Edmund Phelps? The guy at Columbia who received the nobel prize and refuted the Phillips curve. I guess your macroeconomics books need to be revised. I asked some valid questions just to get to know how you think. Evidently, you don't do it very well.
@williamgrozny And I told you to open your manual and go to the Phillips curve. If you don't know what it is then revise. Getting your theory approved by statistics and getting it inserted in every manual for methodologic studies is good enough. Edmund Phelpes didn't refute the Phillips curve, he expanded it. Big difference. Time to revise my man.
@ForzaAquila Don't waste time on pricky & elastic, they're closed in a small box & can't accept new info, even obvious facts. If you're right they'll change subject & say it's some "freedom propaganda" & economics is not science, however they're the ones who know the "real truth", just don't know where from & can't prove it if you ask them. I showed already they support plunder, but they just ignore it. Some limited thinking TROLLS.Just browse comments below.
"Some were unprepared for the stagflation of the 1970s, which contradicted
the Phillips trade-off directly, demonstrating that both evils -- inflation and unemployment -- can prevail simultaneously....The 1990s offered a second refutation of the Phillips Curve, with low unemployment and low inflation obtained at the same time."
@williamgrozny your point being? even the is-lm curve can be repressed in several cases. The rare does occur, that doesn't mean we have to change our theories. Macroeconomics is the general study of big scale economic effects, the study of monetary and fiscal policy and the overview of a country's wealth. The Phillips curve is still studied. Why? Only this doubt could come to the mind of an individual such as yourself.
So economics is a science is it? Hence all economists agree do they well I would suggest that even those on the right &/or left of the economic spectrum do not agree with each other let alone their opposites unlike scientists who agree on much.
Moreover, economic models [whichever one believes in] can be corrupted; whereas if two people jump from a building & one does not believe in gravity the outcome tends to be the same.
@pinickityme I did not understand your first paragraph. I think there was an error of punctuation from your second line because i can't understand it. Economists can disagree on many arguments, so can politicians. But on some arguments like disoccupation, economists would be doubtful to change their opinions because there is no multitude of theories and models on that certain argument.
Is the erroneous/misleading punctuation that made said post so utterly incomprehensible; that you require a comma to be inserted as [,] below:
So economics is a science is it? Hence all economists agree do they[,] well I would suggest that even those on the right &/or left of the economic spectrum etc;
Excuse my lack of understanding: But are you saying that that ALL economists agree on how to stimulate &/or how employment is created in different aspects of the economic cycle?
@pinickityme Is it really really necessary to keep posting two synonyms for adjectives you decide to write? It doesn't make you more intelligent. It makes me wonder something is wrong with you. That being said, I'm talking about disoccupation not employment. Which are linked but not the same thing. I'm actually talking about sindacates, relationship inflation-disoccupation, and government spending to increase consumption and ultimately production/aggregate wealth of a country.
Disoccupation according to thefreedictionary online is: "The state of being unemployed; want of occupation".
& I'm certainly not so up my-own-butt to consider myself "more intelligent" than you; however, is not the "cure" for disoccupation to find an occupation which I presume is a job or is your point more nebulous than that?
Shit; I almost want to apologise, but screw that!!
You stated there was an economic immutable "truth" that would be "best". But even scientists don't consider themselves to have uncovered "absolute truths". whilst that it is human nature/nurture that makes an/any economic model "work &/or fail" although any economic model is unlikely to change the way people would corrupt it. So is it a failure of economics or philosophical perspective.
Well instead of introducing yourself in the grand [all seeing all knowing] manner that you do, you should consider announcing yourself as a hypocrite; & leave it at that!!
@pinickityme You did not initiate an argumentative concept of logic from the other side either, thus initiating a statement of comments in riddles to which I had already stated as an illogical act that I did for no purpose. There is no need for an ultimate point and there was no perspective, just blind attitude without logic nor reason. Hell, I did not even make a point.
If someone was punching YOU in the face would YOU see any point in asking them to stop, trying to stop them or asking why they were doing so?? & if the answer to any of these is yes; let me assure you this would still NOT mean that ultimately there was any point to human existence!! Or is the point that there is no point??
Moreover, you've just been looking for a pointless argument since you "arrived"!! what POINT was there in that!?!?
Your opening gambit was: "So much fancy words from debaters here... it is but a shame that everyone here is a fucking idiot". So you weren't making a point?? so you were just spoiling for an argument then!!
Whilst ultimately there probably isn't a point that one could point to as to whether it matters whether the human-race exists or not. However, that does NOT mean that there's no point in trying to address the issue of poverty & its consequences!!
If you have no premisses and no proposition stop wasting breathable air. You can do it a number of different ways a bare electrical cord and a toilet work nicely. Use your imagination.
@williamgrozny Imagination is but one thing you lack whilst using an inconvenient set of tools that are on par with the devastating effect of being discombobulated as a result of shoving mapple syrup over your cheeks and have your face removed with a vacuum cleaner. Answer you question.
There has not been true capitalism for many years anywhere on the globe. Do not reject capitalism, reject the diminishment you placed upon it. It is not liberty that makes us weak, it is the shackles you placed upon us.
Communism is the stronger form of socialism yes? So how well has communism done in places like North Korea and Soviet Russia where the majorities were never elevated from poverty. Communism just doesn't work. Someone give me an example of where it has? People can't say capitalism has failed in the west because the recessions/credit crunches were the faults of the bankers and their irresponsible behaviour. It wasn't the fault of politicians, the banking systems are private things.
@WelshWidgetman2010 It was.Politicians print money and get their slaves in biggest debts on Earth through bankers. If not politicians, bankers just couldn't force all the ppl into such idtiotism.. They would go bankrupt very quickly..
@MrLkjsdf9 Every country has a currency, and it's the government's duty to support that currency however they can or their citizens suffer. Whether it's capitalist or communist.
What kind of government would you suggest that wouldn't do so? Anarchist perhaps?
@WelshWidgetman2010 It's not to support currency but to rob society. Copy&paste those in ggle: lewrockwell(dot)com/paul/paul334.html Here u can skip to accountant: measuringworth(dot)com/worthmeasures.php and here how rich rob poor in democracy&socialism krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/inequality-trends-in-one-picture/
@fafura13 Everyone in a capitalist society can reach those levels of affluence. Anyone can become a banker if they want. Anyone can become a politician. There's no barrier stopping people from becoming these things. The same can't be said about communism.
@WelshWidgetman2010 Of course, but firstly I do not or anybody here from what I know support communism. Secondly I don't even support socialism & croynyism we live in as actually many do here. I do support capitalism which is based on voluntary exchange. I suppose you do too?
@fafura13 Well I support freedom and you don't get freedom in a communist or fascist state. However although socialism has good intentions it's doomed to failure due to people trying to distribute money they don't have which results in crushing an economy. The Labour party has done this in Britain and the present government is having to fix it, because of the over-spending.
@WelshWidgetman2010 Right, but the only way to fix it is get politicians out of economy & people's money. Stop selling citizens by indebting them to foreign usurers. And to prevent coming it back, you have to stop democracy, which allows easily manipulated masses by politicians, to rule the country. Gov. should be only to protect its people, not "doing business", which always results in croynyism,ruining economy & empoverishing society & future generations.
@fafura13 No politician can strictly abide by laissez-faire. It's not possible. Politicians have to regulate things in the state sector of the economy which directly connects with companies in the private sector, they need each other to survive. If things are not administrated by someone with the know-how, things are doomed to failure. It's like giving the job of a doctor to a construction worker with no qualifications. Kick out all the politicians and who will take their places?
@WW "It's like giving the job of a doctor to a construction worker with no qualifications"This is exactly what happens when you give power to regulate&tax businesses by unknowlegable politicians.U seriously don't think they know every branch of business there is&can predict millions of transactions people make each second?I repeat,gov should only protect people&land.Why would u want them to manage whole economy if they're not responsible for failure&paid whatever the outcome?
@fafura13 Saying that, China has a modified version of communism and they've lifted something like 600 million people out of poverty between 1981-2005.
@WelshWidgetman2010 Correct,but capitalistic reforms caused that.It's because they provided nation with more economic freedom. It's still far from free,but unleashing just little freedom in country constrained for so many years can cause miracles.Formula is simple more freedom&less gov intervention=more wealth & faster growth, less freedom&more gov. intervention=less wealth & ruin of the economy.
What capitalism do you support? For the 90% of US who have seen incomes slide for 20 yrs it's not too hot. US manufacturing is largely in China. Our tech labor is done in India or done in US primarily by frgn labor. The H1-Bs(frgners) help spply demnd eqn wrk for the emplyers. We fester while H1-Bs do new proj and US labor stgnates. The top .1% of pop. has seen grs inc *3 last 20 yrs. Adj 4 inflation it's over 200% incr. Txes for the top inc had decr in that period. Ayn Rand anyone?
@williamgrozny Yes, the only capitalism there can be, where people manage their lifes & money, and total strangers in gov. are out of people's lives. Gov. should only protect its people not "do crony business" that serves the rich by robbing poor & average citizens, like prickytime & elastic want. O’Sullivan’s Law says, in effect, that any organization that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. Ayn Rand you could say.
@WelshWidgetman2010 The People's Republic of China? Last I heard the still use centralized planning for many things. I believe at one point the state maintained a partnership with Communist Chinese capitalism. Yes they smile a lot and make just about everything, however, I am sure people in business are kept on a short leash.
Capitalists do all sorts of things without regulation. America's/world's recent brush with disaster came from irresponsible speculation by financial houses on Wall Street.
@williamgrozny I did say The People's Republic of China has a modified version of communism, but never mind. You're right about businesses being kept on a short leash, but I mean the Chinese have been doing a heck of a lot of foreign investing in Africa and South America. Which worries America. Also the Americans accuse the Chinese of manipulating their currency for their own gains.
I have to admit that there are many things which are compelling in Ron Paul's platform and voting history. There are too many unusual things about Ron Paul, "We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals." Sorry but I believe everyone deserves equal protection of their civil rights. What does this have to do with Margret Thatcher and socialism?
@williamgrozny That's exactly what Paul is saying. What he's saying is there is no such thing as group rights- you cannot gain or lose rights by belonging to a group. Everyone has the same rights- everyone.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people" ~Thomas Jefferson
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."
I love that Jefferson quote. So tell me, how does that fit into your world of FREE FOR ALL economics.
If it were up to me I'd nationalise the banks tomorrow - you know, give the people the power over them. "The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people." TJ not TEJ.
Alas you wouldn't so why throw this quote in our faces? LOL.
@TheElasticJesusRez Jefferson's quote fits perfectly into my capitalist view (I didn't include the last bit cause thats all I could fit in the comment). Interesting you see a case for nationalization in the quote while I see a case for the separation of the gov from economics. The power to issue currency is a power of Congress (the people) not a private bank of elites independent of the gov. Once again its a way to get rid of the middle class and to keep the rich rich.
"The power to issue currency is a power of Congress (the people) not a private bank of elites independent of the gov."
Love it. You mean the same trustworthy Congress that believes Global Warming doesn't exist. Yeah, the same HOR, manned by giddy Republicans, who take backhanders from your beloved Koch brothers - the funders of AFP et al and the Tea Party.
Honesty? Whatever! I wouldn't trust these shysters to run a market stall let alone the banking industry.
@TheElasticJesusRez Just because you don't like those that have been elected to Congress doesn't mean they are illegitimate. After the 2008 election Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency- so what? If you think Dems are less corrupt you are sadly mistaken. Do you see the point of what I'm saying? If the gov isn't involved in economics then how can there be "bought" politicians? Are you getting my point? So then why would you nationalize banks if they cant run a market stall???????
Hey, we have influence pedaling and politicians who ARE in the pockets of the moneyed and corporations. We also have a great number of politicians who, most often, think about their constituents. Give me a list of corrupt politicians. Give me concrete evidence. John Boehner did unethical things recently regarding the would be pipeline from Canada. His investments targeted corp's he knew would benefit. Some call that insider trading. I gave you one corrupt politician in office.
1. FTR I'm from the UK so my knowledge of the US political process is not as well-informed as yours.
2. I never said Democrats were less corrupt.
3. The penalty for banking failure has been massive bonuses for banking bosses. I do not have shares in these banks. I do not have the power to vote them out. However, were government in charge, I do have that power. Democracy allows me to penalise bad government, and yet ironically, not bad corporations.
@TheElasticJesusRez 1. Then you shouldn't talk about how much it sucks if you don't completely understand it. Thats why I don't talk about UK gov cause all I know is that Parliament is divided according to the percentage received in votes- right?
2. Good.
3. Well under capitalism wouldn't those banks have failed (been punished)? And under capitalism you would have the power to penalize corporations you disagree with by taking your business elsewhere. would the failure happen if not for gov?
@TheElasticJesusRez So you're not addressing my other points? I really don't like how you and pinky just pick and choose what you want to answer but if I do that I get bitched out from both of you- double standard much?
Your last posts there are barely worth responding to since you clearly DO NOT understand what science IS & what it's NOT; [i.e. that scientists DO NOT consider their findings absolute].
Furthermore, that your patriotism comes at a price &/or is NOT unconditional.
@pinickityme I understand science fairly well considering I'm studying to be a veterinarian. What do you mean "my patriotism"? Can you answer this on the other thread cause its getting hard to find things on here- my inbox didn't even say I got a comment from you.
@Pantalaimon345 Don't waste time on pricky & elastic, they're closed in a small box & can't accept new info, even obvious facts. If you're right they'll change subject & say it's some "freedom propaganda" & economics is not science, however they're the ones who know the "real truth", just don't know where from & can't prove it if you ask them. I showed already they support plunder, but they just ignore it. Some limited thinking TROLLS.Just browse comments below.
You can have an opinion, I just think its silly to have one about something I know little about.
You don't need a degree in the American/UK political process to see that RIGHT and LEFT are the same the world over. Therefore I can make an informed opinion.
@TheElasticJesusRez Hahah more like the right and the left are one in the same. Both parties have come to stand for socialism- for controls and regulations which is why I support Ron Paul. What socialized bodies exist under laissez- faire capitalism? (I don't consider police, law courts, army as socialized). You may be able to make the case for a library but not much else. Mixed economies are not capitalist- Rand and Paine both discuss what is gross about them.
Comments like; "I don't CONSIDER police, law courts, army as socialised"; make you look ridiculous. They ARE funded out of monies collected from everybody via taxation, hence, are socialised [for everyone's benefit] services. It does NOT matter how you spin it!
the reason you choose to not see something so obvious is that it does not fit into your entrenched inflexible ideological perspective which were you to challenge it would likely shatter the whole delusion.
@pinickityme U& lastic just keep on makin fun of yourselves takin part in serious conversations regarding people's lives without any knowledge of the subject.Police courts&army are NECESSITIES that ALL people use EVERY DAY.Socialised are those when u rob ones to give it to others.Why u even supporting socialism,sorry,ur imaginary "transparent gov" which u don't hav a clue how to make tranparent in the 1st place.U can't prove ur basic point,but keep "acting smart" in serious matters.
The Police, courts & army are NOT necessities; they ARE consequences of human nature/nurture. Food, drink & shelter ARE necessities.
PS - I've asked b4 that you explain your views on gay people & whether you think black people are your equal, since you claimed that I had no religious morality!?
My presumption [until corrected] is that you're a HOMOPHOBIC-WHITE-SUPREMACIST NEANDERTHAL of the kind that seems to haunt Eastern Europe.
@prick "they ARE consequences"Still doesn't change my correct point,that they differ from expensive,unefficient socialized services which in general do people harm.I guess since you're lost in general subject we talking about,you're interested in some minor issues which are private not public.I have nothing against homosexuals.Just want to make sure in major issue,you still do support socialism?Where group of rich & politicians decide on others people's lives & wealth?
if private; why raise religion & its superior moral perspective in the first place? although whether religion provides a superior moral perspective is highly debatable!! & black people are your equal?? No fibs cos your imaginary god is listening eh!?!?
No I'm NOT a socialist but do support a tax funded welfare system [with limits] so the poor/vulnerable are not left with only charities to support them that fails during economic downturns for obvious reasons.
Is the fact that you cannot empathise with any view other than your own proof that your head is in dire need of 'free at point of service' SOCIALISED Health Care?
@TheElasticJesusRez 1/2 We're talking serius stuff here. It's not like everyone can have a different view on how to run other people's lives unless it's your closest family. But if you don't run it like that in your family, then why would you want it to happen all around, including your neighbors running yours. It's human life at stake here! Yours, mine, his & millions. Serious stuff! We have to look how money & people's work is best accomodated, so everyone has equal rights,
@TheElasticJesusRez 2/2 possibilities & can gain most from surrounding world, not that ones are above others and have power to dictate. Do you support monopoly? & it's not that I don't emphatise it's just that I've been there. I used to think like you, but then after I researched the problem I found out that it's not the best way cause it has too many faults.
So after refusing to state your views on gay people for so long you finally say you've "nothing against them". But does that mean them personally or being gay itself. After all; I would suggest that the pope would say he has nothing against gay people personally. BUT that is NOT the whole story is it!! Religious morality & superiority sucks!!
& nothing re: whether you think black people your equal?
You ask: who would scrutinise the scrutinisers; it's called checks & balances & culminates in the electorate being able to vote out a government &/or as is now required; to vote out the system of crony capitalism that has developed/been allowed to develop.
BUT to believe that corruption would NOT envelop a laissez-faire economy by way of cronyism & nepotism since the rich could exercise their disproportionate power that wealth affords is ridiculous.
they're both wrong
KillTheStranger 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS THREAD IS INHABITED BY PERSONS THAT SPAM-OUT COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT SPAM!!
BUT THAT'S OK IN ONE SENSE AS IT MEANS WE CAN SEE WHAT OPINIONS ARE TRYING TO BE CENSORED BY THOSE WHO DOUBTLESSLY WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY SUPPORT FREE-SPEACH!! [WHICH THEY CLEARLY DO NOT!!]
pinickityme 1 day ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Britain is going down the road of economic fascism. And people denied truth of our world by the "news".
I wonder if I could challenge status quo and notions that may be evolved from deception and ignorance. At the very least for your children and for all of us - we are in danger from what we are denied.
Please watch Dr Gabor Mate here on youtube. A number of interviews challenge the dubious nature of peddled "reality". Please - for the vulnerable - wake up.
"there is hatred in ignorance".
telemetry9 1 day ago
dude, English politics is hella entertaining! if C-SPAN was like this, i'd totally tune in!
neverstopgrowing728 1 day ago
Ahhhhhhhh Maggy - you legend !
lou2bozzy 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To any Americans against Obama's healthcare bill. Or anyone against national/socialized/socialist/'communist' healthcare. The U.K's NHS is the 2nd best healthcare service in the world both in value for money and care quality. 2nd to whom.... Northern Ireland's almost identical health service. And it covers everyone, even if your just visiting, which is rather nice. SO FUCK THE TORIES , FUCK THE REPUBLICANS. Healthcare is a right, not a price I need to pay.
TheHarryButtery 1 day ago 8
@TheHarryButtery Great Britain= 88,745 miles and 60 million people
USA= 3.79 million square miles and 312 million people.
Washington does not have the resources do give universal healthcare to everyone. It would not work for us. Even the CBO declared it would cost 1 trillion dollars to fund. I believe in less government intervention, however light regulation will be needed to stop monopolizing health care companies. It may work for you, but not for us. Were in Debt! We cant just tax the rich!
mtstatehk14090914 1 day ago
@TheHarryButtery By the way in the US the top 1% pays for 22% of USA taxes. Bottom 40% pays 10%. Who says America doesnt tax the rich!? When economy goes bad, people complain that the govt should fix it, When It Was the Govt Who Got Them In Their Fiscal Situation!
Capitalism and Corporatism are polar opposite, and thats where D.C. has failed. Quit the lobbying in politics, quit inefficient govt plans, quit govt bailouts, and vote RON PAUL! lol
mtstatehk14090914 1 day ago
@mtstatehk
Lies, dam lies [spin] & statistics:
Given that the top 1% pay such a high %age of the overall tax collected; does this not suggest to you that in spite of Romney et al ONLY paying 15% tax on his millions he "earns" [although earns isn't really what he does IS IT!!] that the top 1% are actually disproportionately creaming-off more than their fair share of any any growth in the economy!?
PS - & YES!! the rich should at the very least pay tax at the same rate as everyone else!!
pinickityme 1 day ago
@pinickityme No its not lies. The rich in America pay i think 32% of their income to taxes. The top 1% do pay for 22% of Americas taxes, you cant ignore that fact just because it isnt what you believe. Romney is a dousche lobbyist and should pay more than 15%. As should all US politicians. Ron Paul is the only candidate that votes no on congressional pay raise and doesnt take out of a govt pension plan, and even gives 1/3 of his paycheck back to the US treasury, and doesnt lobby.
mtstatehk14090914 22 hours ago
@mtstatehk
ffs!!!
I DO believe the top 1% pay 22% of the US tax take!! But if you THINK Romney is so much in the minority [which I doubt] then prove it!! Let's have ALL the tax returns of ALL the top 1% then eh!?
Moreover, IF they pay such a high proportion of the tax take then don't you think that means they are creaming of a disproportionate %age of the growth of the US economy!!
During the last 30 years only the top 1% have seen an increase in real terms in their income!! Explain that!?
pinickityme 22 hours ago
@pinickityme Umm NO. All income brackets have seen a rise in income in real terms. Moreover top 1% have high mobility. People who are in 1% today, were not in the 1% 30 years ago.
And you're arguing we should lower everyone's tax rate to 15% then I agree.
H1TMANactual 21 hours ago
@H1TMANactual
Is that so; whilst the figures suggest that the skilled workforce have seen a real terms pay rise [10 -15%] it seems that the unskilled have taken a hit but that the top 1% have seen an have seen their wage packages grow at an extraordinary rate.
pinickityme 20 hours ago
@pinickityme And why does it matter how much the income of top 1% has gone up?? I already explained to you the income mobility. Both the real income and standard of living of the lower class have also gone up.
H1TMANactual 19 hours ago
@H1TMANactual
I'd not give it a second thought IF ONLY they would pay the same rate of taxation as the rest of us. But instead the most of them pay weaselly accountants to find any/every tax loophole to avoid tax as well as evading tax.
In the UK it is estimated that the exchequer looses as a consequence of the tax avoiding/evading super-rich £120bn EVERY YEAR!! & from the bond-market we're borrowing about £160bn. If they paid-up the bond-market would not have it hands round our bollocks!!
pinickityme 19 hours ago
@pinickityme Dont put words in my mouth asshole.
Pantalaimon345 19 hours ago
@Pantalaimon345
??
pinickityme 19 hours ago
@pinickityme I hate romney so I dont think hes in the minority. And I would agree with you that it is the middle class that needs to be growing and not so much the rich, but then again if more people are getting rich then i support that too. My thing is, and im not saying you believe this, is that you cant just tax the rich into submission to bring people out of poverty. People need to offer something to society before they are given free money.
mtstatehk14090914 20 hours ago
@mtstatehk
It's maybe that we're more in agreement than disagreement; although I don't think that asking the rich to pay tax at the same rate the rest of us is taxing them into submission.
What I find most distasteful is that the rich have to be bribed to not bugger-off to some tax-haven with "their" money, with the offer of low tax rates & scams they can make use of when they actually made said money during the boom years & won't dip into their pockets when so many are now feeling the pinch.
pinickityme 19 hours ago
@pinickityme Agreed. Theres a middle ground somewhere to tax the rich more than the same rate then everyone else. if that makes sense.
mtstatehk14090914 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mtstatehk14090914 Wouldn't the rich just move to where there is little or no tax as they always have?
What is the point of taxing the rich, when they actually invest in productive segments of the economy, while the middle class ties up most of its wealth in housing and takes on debt to do it? Going into debt to buy ever bigger houses doesn't really help the economy.
CloeBuckingham 10 hours ago
@CloeBuckingham
But doesn't that say more about the morality of the rich who would put their boot on our necks so [by threatening to move to a tax haven], in spite of how they [generally speaking] made "their" money with our help during the boom years & won't now pay even the same tax rate as we do nor dip into their pockets to help out!?
But yes, you make a good point re: people not looking after themselves & the rush to buy bigger property which was ever a bubble waiting to burst.
pinickityme 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinickityme No, it doesn't. Not everyone moves. Before Thatcher, the Duke of Westminster was paying at a 90% tax rate. Roger Moore moved, but remained popular. Who wouldn't move, except for someone with strong ties?
About two-thirds of the rich are self-made. You make it sound like they succeeded by exploiting the common man, not creating jobs.
Even you you are paying at 30% and the rich at 25%, 25% of £10M is £2.5M. 30% of £50K is only £15K. If they employ you, they pay your tax too.
CloeBuckingham 5 hours ago
@mtstatehk
It's called progressive taxation & to my way of thinking I think it is the best way to provide for the whole of society. So we do indeed agree.
PS - how goes the debate in the US re: low tax [especially for the rich] v progressive tax? & what do think will be the outcome of the next presidential election?
pinickityme 9 hours ago
@pinickityme The candidates are talking about ending the big govt bailouts to big businesses, lowering taxes for everyone, and cutting govt spending, But I cant believe any of them except for Dr. Paul. So Ron Paul is getting my vote. Gingrich is a lobbier, Romney has a poor record as governor, and Perry is just a straight up liar. Ron paul is the only one who has never voted to raise taxes. How about in England? Im thinking about visiting this summer!
mtstatehk14090914 3 hours ago
@TheHarryButtery
Well said that man.
hearts76100 1 day ago
@TheHarryButtery After introduction of Medicare & Medicaid 50 years ago (making healthcare mostly public & partially monopolistic) prices went up 7-10 times! I suggest you read this how government "solved" healthcare freenation(dot)org/a/f12l3.html Just copy&paste in ggle.
fafura13 1 day ago
Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline. Free-Markets are very dangerous and allow profit to be made from EVERYTHING! War torn countries, tsunami ravaged coastlines. You name it some greedy bugger wants every penny they can squeeze out of it. This meagre comment doesn't come close to the outright disgusting lengths people have gone to make money out of disaster. £15 on that book will be the best money you will spent in a long time.
TheHarryButtery 1 day ago
@TheHarryButtery Good God almighty! Tell me there champ did you just gobble up Naomi Klein's version of history or did you bother to fact check or read any of the refutations and negative reviews? Of course you didn't. For starters I have a 1 star review on Amazon under the name T.John
And as far NHS, a simple google search of "NHS wait times" is enough to debunk your claim of "2nd best healthcare". If central planning worked, you would be speaking Russian.
H1TMANactual 1 day ago
@H1TMANactual
NHS waiting times have risen to unacceptable levels again ONLY since the Con/[Lib] government.
PS - Long unacceptable waiting times also were the trademark of the pre '97 Con government as they desperately underfunded it so that it might die-a-death-of-a-thousands-cuts & hence be ripe for privatisation.
pinickityme 1 day ago
@pinickityme That's what you get when govt provides a service.
H1TMANactual 21 hours ago
@H1TMANactual
Yeah! When in Rome don't ask the Romans, ask Google and the Dallas Chapter of Rednecks R US.
TheElasticJesusRez 1 day ago
@TheElasticJesusRez You're right. Screw getting knowledge from books and studies that have been published. Are you retarded?
H1TMANactual 21 hours ago
@H1TMANactual
No! I'm British, meaning I can confidently state that I know more about the British NHS than Google.
As for books. Refer to fatty acids and vesicles. Far more enjoyable than a bearded git getting lost in desert for 40 years.
TheElasticJesusRez 20 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Umm NO you don't. The population of England is 50 million. You have knowledge of your own experience. You don't have the statistical knowledge for the rest of the other 50 million. Try again.
H1TMANactual 19 hours ago
@H1TMANactual
bbc(.)couk/news/health-12805586
NHS satisfaction 'at record high' Two thirds of the British public are satisfied with the
Writing on the BMJ website, Professor John Appleby said 64% of people were either very or quite satisfied with the NHS.
So tell me what is 64% of 50 million?
I'll let you do the maths since you're the genius.
TheElasticJesusRez 19 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez 64% is very low. Only 9% is "somewhat dissatisfied" & 4% "very dissatisfied" with their private health insurance in the US. Source: Abt SRBI poll for Time.
"Number waiting over four hours in casualty soars by 40% in 1 year" - DailyMail, 27th January
"Quarter of a million still waiting to be treated after over a year" - The Telegraph, 17th Nov 2011
NHS is highly inefficient and can easily cut $32 billion - McKinsey report, funded by NHS.
Try again.
H1TMANactual 19 hours ago
@H1TMANactual
How dissatisfied are those that work who cannot afford private health insurance in the US but do NOT qualify for any form of Medicaid? as opposed to those that have expressed an opinion on the private health insurance they have which I'm sure is pretty good if you can afford it!!
pinickityme 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinickityme Do you honestly believe health care is going to save you? Just eat well, drink less, smoke less, and exercise more and you eliminate most potential health problems. By the time you're running to the doctor, it's pretty damn late in the game. Most illnesses are preventable by what the patient does, not the doctor. If we got rid of health insurance, people might get scared and actually pay attention to their lifestyles.
CloeBuckingham 10 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez
"OneBigJerkOffski" says in a post 2u: "I used to think like you, but then after I researched the problem I found out that it's not the best way".
Well there's hope for you yet then eh!! LOL
pinickityme 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thatcher's interpretation of Socialism - "the poor-poorer and the rich-poorer"
Tony Benn's interpretation of Socialism - "Corporations should be taxed more for the benefit of the wider public"
Conclusion:
Our totally free-market doesn't work as corporations and banks make business of finding there way around taxation problems (example Vodafone £6Bn in unpaid tax). To what degree capitalism should mix with socialist ideals is up for debate.
(We could start by nationalising the public banks)
SpidermanInLondon 2 days ago 7
@SpidermanInLondon Did you read the bull you just wrote??You contradicting yourself, first by saying:"Our totally free-market"-you must live on Mars or even further,coz most ecenomies are centrally controlled including yours.And"free market doesnt work as corporations and banks make business"Means in current socialist system politicians&rich (banks&corporations)take advantage of ordinary people.I suggest you find out what is happening around you before you make fool of urself.
fafura13 1 day ago
Comment removed
SpidermanInLondon 2 days ago
We need one hundred Margareth Tatcher in the western countries right now to save ourself from socialism. Socialism = work from january to july to feed the parasites (state empoyees) + permanent economic recession and bankruptcy. If not immediately cut public spending, China and India will destroy our economies.
TheReginadistracci 2 days ago
@TheReginadistracci
Yeah!!!
Get rid of all state parasites.
1. The police. Call Rent a fist.
2. The Courts. Call Judge Judy
3. fire service. Buy a bucket and hosepipe.
4. health service (UK) call 'sorry but you'll find the smallprint says...'
5. Pay for our own streetlighting and BANG! wait 4 the insurance claims.
6. Take our own rubbish to landfills and watch the largest traffic jam since Die Hard 4.
7. Army - Go drill your own oil, baby.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez I agree with you: you have to give taxpayers' money to the army, police, firefighters, managers of street lighting and so on. But we must not entrust to the state, which is wasteful by nature, the services that the private sector can provide better and cheaper. The trains in Britain are private and should be okay, I guess. We have no money to pay people to dig holes and cover them. John Maynard Keynes go to hell!!!!!!!!!
TheReginadistracci 20 hours ago
@TheReginadistracci
We can argue all day about economics and politics but I think a fair and decent society is down to one, and one thing only: the type of people running the show - whether it be government or business.
If everybody were like Bill Gates - fine.
If everybody were like Fred Goodwin - then fuck off.
As long as industry understands that the workforce is an advantage not an impediment then the world would be much happier place (and prosperous) place.
TheElasticJesusRez 19 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez
Your statement should be reversed: As long as the workforce is aware that capital is an asset and not an impediment then the world would be a much happier place (and prosperous) place.
Say goodbye to that charlatan of Marx: the capitalists are not "thieves of surplus value," but the creators of wealth for all.
TheReginadistracci 7 hours ago
@TheReginadistracci
One inventor, one machine, one worker.
If the inventor invents with EASE, but doesn't have the strength to work the machine, if the worker works with EASE, but doesn't have the intelligence to invent the machine, if both are happy and agree that one cannot work without the other - that they share the reward equally - then who the fuck are you to say otherwise?
Or does Liberty and Choice only count if it suits Wall Street?
Next...
TheElasticJesusRez 6 hours ago 3
@TheElasticJesusRez
And say goodbye to that scoundrel of Mill: no need to "redistribute wealth" but to create them.
Marghareth is right: it is better if it increases the gap between rich and poor.
If it doubles my poor wages and doubles the bank account of Bill Gates, the gap between me and Gates increases in mathematical terms, but I'm richest.
TheReginadistracci 7 hours ago
Are you listening Obama?
97VR4 2 days ago
No you know why she was and is called the IRON LADY,she stands with her principles,like it or not
Hoschi0913 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Margaret Thatcher was the greatest leader Britain ever had, she is respected throughout the world. Without her UK would be in the land of dinosaurs still producing coal nobody needs, certainly not those who care about the environment. From an Italian.
romaitalia29 2 days ago
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I'm outta here. Just when debate was getting fun the hooded claw returns from his hols in the Poznan Pontins.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez
"the hooded claw returns from his hols in the Poznan Pontins". LOL
like one of those budget horror movies [but without any redeeming features!!].
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme
Ed Wood plays Brothers Grimm plays Margaret Thatcher plays The Blob.
Now, that's scary.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
everyone who is against what was said in this video just proved themselves to be ignorants with no base knowledge in simple macroeconomics.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForzaAquila
How about physics, biology, chemistry, geosciences and climatology?
Sorry but I didn't realise 'Macro-economics' was an indivisible law of Time and Space that couldn't be dissected, rearranged, or indeed ripped apart as nothing more than an anthropogenic solution to an anthropogenic problem.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez The answer is simple: i can tell you how macroeconomics proves her argument reasonable. Can you prove her argument right with chemistry? I think not my friend.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
No, but I could probably prove it wrong with biology AND Chemistry. Try base acids that eventually evolved into human beings that realised after Toba and the 'Bottlenecking' of the human race that altruism - working together for the common good - was the best way to survive.
Alas, 70,000 years later they regressed into God(s)-fearing idiots, adopted a pyramidal elitist system, and have been travelling the slippery slope of savagery ever since.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez nice you proved why altruism exists..i don't see how that is relevant to this video where thatcher describes why direct socialism will never work and how decreasing the economic chasm between the poor and the rich will not solve the economic situation of the poor..
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
Ugh!?
If you can find anyone arguing for "state/worker ownership of the means of production", then who are they?
whilst most of us NOT advocating unregulated free-market capitalism are merely arguing for ethical-regulated-capitalism to underpin a society wherein some socilaised services are provided so that the less well-off/vulnerable are not systematically shafted [especially during an economic downturn].
pinickityme 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
I have a question for you. Can you refute your propositions? I mean is it possible to refute the macroeconomic guesses? How is the refutation done, deduction. What is your ontology and your epistemology. This for the benefit of my understanding of psychology and logical inference.
williamgrozny 2 days ago
@williamgrozny So after four lines of trying to make yourself sound intelligent by using sophisticated words, your question can be summed up with "can you prove what you said". Everyone knows Thatcher did everything to decrease disoccupation, from the abolition of sindicates to her disoccupation standoff. If you open any macroeconomics book, flip to the section on the Phillips curve and you'll understand why. I'm not here to teach you lessons.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
I asked you what do you know and how do you know it. I want to know what is the basis for theories you love.Getting published in a book is not proof. What about Edmund Phelps? The guy at Columbia who received the nobel prize and refuted the Phillips curve. I guess your macroeconomics books need to be revised. I asked some valid questions just to get to know how you think. Evidently, you don't do it very well.
williamgrozny 2 days ago
@williamgrozny And I told you to open your manual and go to the Phillips curve. If you don't know what it is then revise. Getting your theory approved by statistics and getting it inserted in every manual for methodologic studies is good enough. Edmund Phelpes didn't refute the Phillips curve, he expanded it. Big difference. Time to revise my man.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForzaAquila Don't waste time on pricky & elastic, they're closed in a small box & can't accept new info, even obvious facts. If you're right they'll change subject & say it's some "freedom propaganda" & economics is not science, however they're the ones who know the "real truth", just don't know where from & can't prove it if you ask them. I showed already they support plunder, but they just ignore it. Some limited thinking TROLLS.Just browse comments below.
fafura13 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
Part1
"Some were unprepared for the stagflation of the 1970s, which contradicted
the Phillips trade-off directly, demonstrating that both evils -- inflation and unemployment -- can prevail simultaneously....The 1990s offered a second refutation of the Phillips Curve, with low unemployment and low inflation obtained at the same time."
williamgrozny 2 days ago
@williamgrozny your point being? even the is-lm curve can be repressed in several cases. The rare does occur, that doesn't mean we have to change our theories. Macroeconomics is the general study of big scale economic effects, the study of monetary and fiscal policy and the overview of a country's wealth. The Phillips curve is still studied. Why? Only this doubt could come to the mind of an individual such as yourself.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
Part 2
The preceding in part 1 is curtesy of "Bloomberg, This Nobel Prize Sends a Stark Signal to Columbia: Amity Shlaes. October 11, 2006 05:45 EDT"
williamgrozny 2 days ago
@williamgrozny ?
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ForzaAquila
So economics is a science is it? Hence all economists agree do they well I would suggest that even those on the right &/or left of the economic spectrum do not agree with each other let alone their opposites unlike scientists who agree on much.
Moreover, economic models [whichever one believes in] can be corrupted; whereas if two people jump from a building & one does not believe in gravity the outcome tends to be the same.
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme I did not understand your first paragraph. I think there was an error of punctuation from your second line because i can't understand it. Economists can disagree on many arguments, so can politicians. But on some arguments like disoccupation, economists would be doubtful to change their opinions because there is no multitude of theories and models on that certain argument.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
Is the erroneous/misleading punctuation that made said post so utterly incomprehensible; that you require a comma to be inserted as [,] below:
So economics is a science is it? Hence all economists agree do they[,] well I would suggest that even those on the right &/or left of the economic spectrum etc;
Excuse my lack of understanding: But are you saying that that ALL economists agree on how to stimulate &/or how employment is created in different aspects of the economic cycle?
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme Is it really really necessary to keep posting two synonyms for adjectives you decide to write? It doesn't make you more intelligent. It makes me wonder something is wrong with you. That being said, I'm talking about disoccupation not employment. Which are linked but not the same thing. I'm actually talking about sindacates, relationship inflation-disoccupation, and government spending to increase consumption and ultimately production/aggregate wealth of a country.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
Disoccupation according to thefreedictionary online is: "The state of being unemployed; want of occupation".
& I'm certainly not so up my-own-butt to consider myself "more intelligent" than you; however, is not the "cure" for disoccupation to find an occupation which I presume is a job or is your point more nebulous than that?
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme No my point is I don't know your point. Why are you talking to me? What did i say wrong that made you contradict me...
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
@ForzaAquila
Shit; I almost want to apologise, but screw that!!
You stated there was an economic immutable "truth" that would be "best". But even scientists don't consider themselves to have uncovered "absolute truths". whilst that it is human nature/nurture that makes an/any economic model "work &/or fail" although any economic model is unlikely to change the way people would corrupt it. So is it a failure of economics or philosophical perspective.
But clearly I am not "talking to you".
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme My comment was based towards the average individual, if a new Keynes was to step up and contraddict me then of course i'd back down.
ForzaAquila 2 days ago
So much fancy words from debaters here... it is but a shame that everyone here is a fucking idiot.
BadassBigBoss 3 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
Beliefs, Religions, Ideologies, opinions..... they are like assholes: They are everywhere and they STINK.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Yup... I tend to use it reminder of the ultimate irony of how I have a philosophy that I am too foolish to follow.
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
LOL! I'd reply but you'd probably bollock me for thinking.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez I am bollocking you already. You just did not think about it.
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
Which reminds me of the dream where I fell off a cliff and stopped halfway for an icecream.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Now that my friend, is pure christian bollocks!
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadassBigBoss
'Now that my friend, is pure christian bollocks!'
The ice cream van or the picture of Rip Van Winkle on my John Wayne Tie rack?
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
Well instead of introducing yourself in the grand [all seeing all knowing] manner that you do, you should consider announcing yourself as a hypocrite; & leave it at that!!
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme Me being a hypocrite was the sole point why I commented on this video. You pork chub!
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
& the point of that was what??
pinickityme 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadassBigBoss
you say:
"So much fancy words from debaters here... it is but a shame that everyone here is a fucking idiot".
So we're all fucking idiots; maybe so, but we surely should exercise our idiocy so as to prove it otherwise we would NOT be idiots. [catch 22]
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme Somebody flagged your comment as spam. I say that makes it pointless for me to point out just how stupid this comment was.
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss Yup: utterly pointless but you had to do it anyway eh!!
but as I said: so as to prove just how pointless you had to do it so's to prove your point [catch 22].
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme You do realize that, in an utter defenition of our concept of the universe and our realm, everything is pointless?
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss I never said otherwise!!
However, what you have failed to differentiate between is an ultimate point & the point from a subjective perspective.
Hey-ho: GOODBYE!!
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme You did not initiate an argumentative concept of logic from the other side either, thus initiating a statement of comments in riddles to which I had already stated as an illogical act that I did for no purpose. There is no need for an ultimate point and there was no perspective, just blind attitude without logic nor reason. Hell, I did not even make a point.
Sodomized tyrant of pants!
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss [2 of 2]
If someone was punching YOU in the face would YOU see any point in asking them to stop, trying to stop them or asking why they were doing so?? & if the answer to any of these is yes; let me assure you this would still NOT mean that ultimately there was any point to human existence!! Or is the point that there is no point??
Moreover, you've just been looking for a pointless argument since you "arrived"!! what POINT was there in that!?!?
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme THERE IS NO POINT! And that is my point. Your point is?
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
Hilarious!! you clearly aren't even intelligent enough to be stupid!! LOL
pinickityme 1 day ago
@pinickityme Says somebody who uses the internet slogan. You filthy pagan!
BadassBigBoss 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BadassBigBoss [1 of 2]
Your opening gambit was: "So much fancy words from debaters here... it is but a shame that everyone here is a fucking idiot". So you weren't making a point?? so you were just spoiling for an argument then!!
Whilst ultimately there probably isn't a point that one could point to as to whether it matters whether the human-race exists or not. However, that does NOT mean that there's no point in trying to address the issue of poverty & its consequences!!
pinickityme 2 days ago
@BadassBigBoss
If you have no premisses and no proposition stop wasting breathable air. You can do it a number of different ways a bare electrical cord and a toilet work nicely. Use your imagination.
williamgrozny 2 days ago
@williamgrozny Imagination is but one thing you lack whilst using an inconvenient set of tools that are on par with the devastating effect of being discombobulated as a result of shoving mapple syrup over your cheeks and have your face removed with a vacuum cleaner. Answer you question.
BadassBigBoss 2 days ago
Comment removed
williamgrozny 2 days ago
I sincerely hope Thatcher dies before Fidel Castro
Anygodwilldo 3 days ago
There has not been true capitalism for many years anywhere on the globe. Do not reject capitalism, reject the diminishment you placed upon it. It is not liberty that makes us weak, it is the shackles you placed upon us.
instantpestering 3 days ago 2
Was this during her last pmqs?
Shizum21 3 days ago
And she supports socialized medicine? :S
whatevr192 3 days ago
Welcome folks to the Fafura channel.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheElasticJesusRez
You wouldn't mind if JerkOffski's argument stacked-up but ffs. But it's like a force-10 bucket of undiluted bullshit!!
PS - have you had a look at the Krugman blog?? Krugman is pro-regulation & blames deregulation for the US sub-prime mess.
Said blog & graphics show how the top 1% have made a killing since '79 [i.e. since Reagan & Thatch].
pinickityme 3 days ago
Communism is the stronger form of socialism yes? So how well has communism done in places like North Korea and Soviet Russia where the majorities were never elevated from poverty. Communism just doesn't work. Someone give me an example of where it has? People can't say capitalism has failed in the west because the recessions/credit crunches were the faults of the bankers and their irresponsible behaviour. It wasn't the fault of politicians, the banking systems are private things.
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
@WelshWidgetman2010 It was.Politicians print money and get their slaves in biggest debts on Earth through bankers. If not politicians, bankers just couldn't force all the ppl into such idtiotism.. They would go bankrupt very quickly..
MrLkjsdf9 3 days ago 2
@MrLkjsdf9 Every country has a currency, and it's the government's duty to support that currency however they can or their citizens suffer. Whether it's capitalist or communist.
What kind of government would you suggest that wouldn't do so? Anarchist perhaps?
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
@WelshWidgetman2010 It's not to support currency but to rob society. Copy&paste those in ggle: lewrockwell(dot)com/paul/paul334.html Here u can skip to accountant: measuringworth(dot)com/worthmeasures.php and here how rich rob poor in democracy&socialism krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/inequality-trends-in-one-picture/
fafura13 3 days ago
@fafura13 Everyone in a capitalist society can reach those levels of affluence. Anyone can become a banker if they want. Anyone can become a politician. There's no barrier stopping people from becoming these things. The same can't be said about communism.
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
@WelshWidgetman2010 Of course, but firstly I do not or anybody here from what I know support communism. Secondly I don't even support socialism & croynyism we live in as actually many do here. I do support capitalism which is based on voluntary exchange. I suppose you do too?
fafura13 3 days ago
@fafura13 Well I support freedom and you don't get freedom in a communist or fascist state. However although socialism has good intentions it's doomed to failure due to people trying to distribute money they don't have which results in crushing an economy. The Labour party has done this in Britain and the present government is having to fix it, because of the over-spending.
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
@WelshWidgetman2010 Right, but the only way to fix it is get politicians out of economy & people's money. Stop selling citizens by indebting them to foreign usurers. And to prevent coming it back, you have to stop democracy, which allows easily manipulated masses by politicians, to rule the country. Gov. should be only to protect its people, not "doing business", which always results in croynyism,ruining economy & empoverishing society & future generations.
fafura13 3 days ago
@fafura13 No politician can strictly abide by laissez-faire. It's not possible. Politicians have to regulate things in the state sector of the economy which directly connects with companies in the private sector, they need each other to survive. If things are not administrated by someone with the know-how, things are doomed to failure. It's like giving the job of a doctor to a construction worker with no qualifications. Kick out all the politicians and who will take their places?
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
@WW "It's like giving the job of a doctor to a construction worker with no qualifications"This is exactly what happens when you give power to regulate&tax businesses by unknowlegable politicians.U seriously don't think they know every branch of business there is&can predict millions of transactions people make each second?I repeat,gov should only protect people&land.Why would u want them to manage whole economy if they're not responsible for failure&paid whatever the outcome?
fafura13 3 days ago
@fafura13 Saying that, China has a modified version of communism and they've lifted something like 600 million people out of poverty between 1981-2005.
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
@WelshWidgetman2010 Correct,but capitalistic reforms caused that.It's because they provided nation with more economic freedom. It's still far from free,but unleashing just little freedom in country constrained for so many years can cause miracles.Formula is simple more freedom&less gov intervention=more wealth & faster growth, less freedom&more gov. intervention=less wealth & ruin of the economy.
fafura13 3 days ago
@fafura13
What capitalism do you support? For the 90% of US who have seen incomes slide for 20 yrs it's not too hot. US manufacturing is largely in China. Our tech labor is done in India or done in US primarily by frgn labor. The H1-Bs(frgners) help spply demnd eqn wrk for the emplyers. We fester while H1-Bs do new proj and US labor stgnates. The top .1% of pop. has seen grs inc *3 last 20 yrs. Adj 4 inflation it's over 200% incr. Txes for the top inc had decr in that period. Ayn Rand anyone?
williamgrozny 3 days ago 2
@williamgrozny Yes, the only capitalism there can be, where people manage their lifes & money, and total strangers in gov. are out of people's lives. Gov. should only protect its people not "do crony business" that serves the rich by robbing poor & average citizens, like prickytime & elastic want. O’Sullivan’s Law says, in effect, that any organization that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. Ayn Rand you could say.
fafura13 3 days ago
@WelshWidgetman2010 The People's Republic of China? Last I heard the still use centralized planning for many things. I believe at one point the state maintained a partnership with Communist Chinese capitalism. Yes they smile a lot and make just about everything, however, I am sure people in business are kept on a short leash.
Capitalists do all sorts of things without regulation. America's/world's recent brush with disaster came from irresponsible speculation by financial houses on Wall Street.
williamgrozny 3 days ago
@williamgrozny I did say The People's Republic of China has a modified version of communism, but never mind. You're right about businesses being kept on a short leash, but I mean the Chinese have been doing a heck of a lot of foreign investing in Africa and South America. Which worries America. Also the Americans accuse the Chinese of manipulating their currency for their own gains.
WelshWidgetman2010 3 days ago
Who here likes Ron Paul?
Pantalaimon345 4 days ago 3
@Pantalaimon345
I have to admit that there are many things which are compelling in Ron Paul's platform and voting history. There are too many unusual things about Ron Paul, "We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals." Sorry but I believe everyone deserves equal protection of their civil rights. What does this have to do with Margret Thatcher and socialism?
williamgrozny 2 days ago
Comment removed
pinickityme 2 days ago
@williamgrozny That's exactly what Paul is saying. What he's saying is there is no such thing as group rights- you cannot gain or lose rights by belonging to a group. Everyone has the same rights- everyone.
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people" ~Thomas Jefferson
Pantalaimon345 4 days ago 2
@Pantalaimon345 anti semitism was really popular in the 18th century
LambChowder1 4 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."
I love that Jefferson quote. So tell me, how does that fit into your world of FREE FOR ALL economics.
If it were up to me I'd nationalise the banks tomorrow - you know, give the people the power over them. "The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people." TJ not TEJ.
Alas you wouldn't so why throw this quote in our faces? LOL.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Jefferson's quote fits perfectly into my capitalist view (I didn't include the last bit cause thats all I could fit in the comment). Interesting you see a case for nationalization in the quote while I see a case for the separation of the gov from economics. The power to issue currency is a power of Congress (the people) not a private bank of elites independent of the gov. Once again its a way to get rid of the middle class and to keep the rich rich.
Pantalaimon345 3 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
"The power to issue currency is a power of Congress (the people) not a private bank of elites independent of the gov."
Love it. You mean the same trustworthy Congress that believes Global Warming doesn't exist. Yeah, the same HOR, manned by giddy Republicans, who take backhanders from your beloved Koch brothers - the funders of AFP et al and the Tea Party.
Honesty? Whatever! I wouldn't trust these shysters to run a market stall let alone the banking industry.
TheElasticJesusRez 3 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Just because you don't like those that have been elected to Congress doesn't mean they are illegitimate. After the 2008 election Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency- so what? If you think Dems are less corrupt you are sadly mistaken. Do you see the point of what I'm saying? If the gov isn't involved in economics then how can there be "bought" politicians? Are you getting my point? So then why would you nationalize banks if they cant run a market stall???????
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
Hey, we have influence pedaling and politicians who ARE in the pockets of the moneyed and corporations. We also have a great number of politicians who, most often, think about their constituents. Give me a list of corrupt politicians. Give me concrete evidence. John Boehner did unethical things recently regarding the would be pipeline from Canada. His investments targeted corp's he knew would benefit. Some call that insider trading. I gave you one corrupt politician in office.
williamgrozny 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
1. FTR I'm from the UK so my knowledge of the US political process is not as well-informed as yours.
2. I never said Democrats were less corrupt.
3. The penalty for banking failure has been massive bonuses for banking bosses. I do not have shares in these banks. I do not have the power to vote them out. However, were government in charge, I do have that power. Democracy allows me to penalise bad government, and yet ironically, not bad corporations.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez 1. Then you shouldn't talk about how much it sucks if you don't completely understand it. Thats why I don't talk about UK gov cause all I know is that Parliament is divided according to the percentage received in votes- right?
2. Good.
3. Well under capitalism wouldn't those banks have failed (been punished)? And under capitalism you would have the power to penalize corporations you disagree with by taking your business elsewhere. would the failure happen if not for gov?
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
I dont fully understand the ins and outs of British politics. Does that mean I can't have an opinion? A very silly point.
Under capitalism those banks DID fail. But when did I say I didn't like Capitalism per se?
As for taking business elsewhere. How many accounts do you think I have in all the world's banks that the absence of my money would hurt them?
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez You can have an opinion, I just think its silly to have one about something I know little about.
Nationalization = opposite of capitalism
You should never underestimate an individual's strength. Isn't all society individuals making individual decisions?
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
no, perhaps and no.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez why, why, why?
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez So you're not addressing my other points? I really don't like how you and pinky just pick and choose what you want to answer but if I do that I get bitched out from both of you- double standard much?
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
Comment removed
pinickityme 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
reposted so as to make sense:
so what questions have you ever put to me that i have not responded to?
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme on the other margaret thatcher thread which elastic made.
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
Your last posts there are barely worth responding to since you clearly DO NOT understand what science IS & what it's NOT; [i.e. that scientists DO NOT consider their findings absolute].
Furthermore, that your patriotism comes at a price &/or is NOT unconditional.
That said; I will do so
pinickityme 2 days ago
@pinickityme I understand science fairly well considering I'm studying to be a veterinarian. What do you mean "my patriotism"? Can you answer this on the other thread cause its getting hard to find things on here- my inbox didn't even say I got a comment from you.
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345 Don't waste time on pricky & elastic, they're closed in a small box & can't accept new info, even obvious facts. If you're right they'll change subject & say it's some "freedom propaganda" & economics is not science, however they're the ones who know the "real truth", just don't know where from & can't prove it if you ask them. I showed already they support plunder, but they just ignore it. Some limited thinking TROLLS.Just browse comments below.
fafura13 2 days ago
@fafura13 Hahha yes I realized that a while ago
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
@Pantalaimon345
You can have an opinion, I just think its silly to have one about something I know little about.
You don't need a degree in the American/UK political process to see that RIGHT and LEFT are the same the world over. Therefore I can make an informed opinion.
TheElasticJesusRez 2 days ago
@TheElasticJesusRez Hahah more like the right and the left are one in the same. Both parties have come to stand for socialism- for controls and regulations which is why I support Ron Paul. What socialized bodies exist under laissez- faire capitalism? (I don't consider police, law courts, army as socialized). You may be able to make the case for a library but not much else. Mixed economies are not capitalist- Rand and Paine both discuss what is gross about them.
Pantalaimon345 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pantalaimon345
Comments like; "I don't CONSIDER police, law courts, army as socialised"; make you look ridiculous. They ARE funded out of monies collected from everybody via taxation, hence, are socialised [for everyone's benefit] services. It does NOT matter how you spin it!
the reason you choose to not see something so obvious is that it does not fit into your entrenched inflexible ideological perspective which were you to challenge it would likely shatter the whole delusion.
pinickityme 2 days ago 4
@pinickityme U& lastic just keep on makin fun of yourselves takin part in serious conversations regarding people's lives without any knowledge of the subject.Police courts&army are NECESSITIES that ALL people use EVERY DAY.Socialised are those when u rob ones to give it to others.Why u even supporting socialism,sorry,ur imaginary "transparent gov" which u don't hav a clue how to make tranparent in the 1st place.U can't prove ur basic point,but keep "acting smart" in serious matters.
fafura13 23 hours ago
@OneBigJerkOffski [aka fafura13]
Here's a bone to gnaw on:
The Police, courts & army are NOT necessities; they ARE consequences of human nature/nurture. Food, drink & shelter ARE necessities.
PS - I've asked b4 that you explain your views on gay people & whether you think black people are your equal, since you claimed that I had no religious morality!?
My presumption [until corrected] is that you're a HOMOPHOBIC-WHITE-SUPREMACIST NEANDERTHAL of the kind that seems to haunt Eastern Europe.
pinickityme 22 hours ago
@prick "they ARE consequences"Still doesn't change my correct point,that they differ from expensive,unefficient socialized services which in general do people harm.I guess since you're lost in general subject we talking about,you're interested in some minor issues which are private not public.I have nothing against homosexuals.Just want to make sure in major issue,you still do support socialism?Where group of rich & politicians decide on others people's lives & wealth?
fafura13 21 hours ago
@OneBigJerkOffski [aka fafura13]
if private; why raise religion & its superior moral perspective in the first place? although whether religion provides a superior moral perspective is highly debatable!! & black people are your equal?? No fibs cos your imaginary god is listening eh!?!?
No I'm NOT a socialist but do support a tax funded welfare system [with limits] so the poor/vulnerable are not left with only charities to support them that fails during economic downturns for obvious reasons.
pinickityme 20 hours ago
@Aspergers13
Is the fact that you cannot empathise with any view other than your own proof that your head is in dire need of 'free at point of service' SOCIALISED Health Care?
TheElasticJesusRez 20 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez 1/2 We're talking serius stuff here. It's not like everyone can have a different view on how to run other people's lives unless it's your closest family. But if you don't run it like that in your family, then why would you want it to happen all around, including your neighbors running yours. It's human life at stake here! Yours, mine, his & millions. Serious stuff! We have to look how money & people's work is best accomodated, so everyone has equal rights,
fafura13 19 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez 2/2 possibilities & can gain most from surrounding world, not that ones are above others and have power to dictate. Do you support monopoly? & it's not that I don't emphatise it's just that I've been there. I used to think like you, but then after I researched the problem I found out that it's not the best way cause it has too many faults.
fafura13 19 hours ago
@TheElasticJesusRez So are you going to answer my questions?
Pantalaimon345 13 minutes ago
@OneBigJerkOffski [aks fafura13]
So after refusing to state your views on gay people for so long you finally say you've "nothing against them". But does that mean them personally or being gay itself. After all; I would suggest that the pope would say he has nothing against gay people personally. BUT that is NOT the whole story is it!! Religious morality & superiority sucks!!
& nothing re: whether you think black people your equal?
pinickityme 6 hours ago
@OneBigJerkOffski [aks fafura13]
You ask: who would scrutinise the scrutinisers; it's called checks & balances & culminates in the electorate being able to vote out a government &/or as is now required; to vote out the system of crony capitalism that has developed/been allowed to develop.
BUT to believe that corruption would NOT envelop a laissez-faire economy by way of cronyism & nepotism since the rich could exercise their disproportionate power that wealth affords is ridiculous.
pinickityme 6 hours ago
@OneBigJerkOffski [aks fafura13]
read the fucking article on Singapore [that you believe is the MOST FREE global economy] that I suggested to see how it has been corrupted!!
pinickityme 6 hours ago