Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats" High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. " What, even in Kensington? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? " Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. " Only 2 more for the Full House | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money " The silver spooned elitist posh toffs in Kensington still haven't got over the Brexit vote going against them and voted for Labour as a bitter protest. Still Labour only get 262 seats and the conservatives have ended up on 318 seats (with 10 DUP makes a majority) so the overall vote has gone against them again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats" 68.7% turnout. Highest turnout for a general election in a long while. So the Conservatives got a vote share less than 1% down on Labours landslide of 1997 & Maggies of 1983 but with a higher turnout but failed to secure a majority. The thing is that these are percentages being expressed rather than actual numbers. Think I'll set myself a little research project for the weekend | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The silver spooned elitist posh toffs in Kensington " I think it's fairly obvious to see you've never visited Ladbroke Grove have you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was an interesting analysis of previous UKIP votes...... Where there was still a UKIP candidate then (on average) 3/4 of them deserted UKIP but split roughly 50/50 between the two main parties. In seats where UKIP didn't put a candidate up (they said to help Tories) then the other 1/4 (the rump or "core" UKIP supporters.)..mainly went to Labour. The whole plan seems to have backfired!" I saw that study referenced on telly, half the ukip vote went conservative, only a quarter went Labour while the other quarter stayed with a hard core ukip vote. Where ukip didn't field a candidate the remaining quarter hardcore ukip vote went to Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money " Or most people pay tax and they have a right to vote for parties that will raise or lower taxes that all governments spend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money " Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism." Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Or most people pay tax and they have a right to vote for parties that will raise or lower taxes that all governments spend." But not everyone pays the same tax. Im simply pointing out that the region's who pay proportionally less tax are the ones most keen on spending proportionally more, on average. It's not so much a criticism as it is saying that i wish they wouldn't dress up their own self interest in moral terms. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money The silver spooned elitist posh toffs in Kensington still haven't got over the Brexit vote going against them and voted for Labour as a bitter protest. Still Labour only get 262 seats and the conservatives have ended up on 318 seats (with 10 DUP makes a majority) so the overall vote has gone against them again. " Exactly this. Brexit hurts the wealthy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. " Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money The silver spooned elitist posh toffs in Kensington still haven't got over the Brexit vote going against them and voted for Labour as a bitter protest. Still Labour only get 262 seats and the conservatives have ended up on 318 seats (with 10 DUP makes a majority) so the overall vote has gone against them again. Exactly this. Brexit hurts the wealthy. " No, Brexit hurts everyone. I dare say the wealthy might, on average, have a bit more of a world view and understand that though. -Matt | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Or most people pay tax and they have a right to vote for parties that will raise or lower taxes that all governments spend. But not everyone pays the same tax. Im simply pointing out that the region's who pay proportionally less tax are the ones most keen on spending proportionally more, on average. It's not so much a criticism as it is saying that i wish they wouldn't dress up their own self interest in moral terms. " You mean like rich people telling poor people it's their moral imperative to pull themselves up by their boot straps? Yeah, that is annoying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS?" No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Or most people pay tax and they have a right to vote for parties that will raise or lower taxes that all governments spend. But not everyone pays the same tax. Im simply pointing out that the region's who pay proportionally less tax are the ones most keen on spending proportionally more, on average. It's not so much a criticism as it is saying that i wish they wouldn't dress up their own self interest in moral terms. You mean like rich people telling poor people it's their moral imperative to pull themselves up by their boot straps? Yeah, that is annoying." Yes that is the other side of the same coin, possibly the most logical thing you've ever posted. I feel we made progress today, you get a | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. " Norway and Sweden are capitalist & socialist in outlook and they enjoy amongst the highest living standards in the world. Food banks and homelessness; are they hallmarks of your capitalist wonderland? Try visiting the most deprived areas of Liverpool and Greater Manchester and congratulate them on the incredibly high standards of living they enjoy. By the luck of being born there they automatically have a lower life expectancy! Or maybe tell that to the nurses and police that serve you, that need to use food banks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. " No offence, but you sound like a pig from animal farm. Or farmer Jones more like. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. " Plus, we've not really had a communist state. We had a brief period post the 1917 October revolution where people's wealth and freedoms increased massively but the state was taken over by the Stalinist putsch which you could not claim to be communism. If you read Marx, then these countries didn't follow the pattern that he expected, where communism would follow a prolonged period of capitalist development. That has yet to happen. Have you read any Marx? (Not meant to be a silly question, I was just wondering what Marx you have read so we could discuss) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east." Nice try but grew up in Manchester  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east. Nice try but grew up in Manchester "Doesn't explain the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of your statements, and tbh, anyone could make offhand comments like that. I don't believe you, and don't really care. What's your smart answer to the hard working nurses relying on food banks in your wealthy utopia. Should they just stop whingeing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. Plus, we've not really had a communist state. We had a brief period post the 1917 October revolution where people's wealth and freedoms increased massively but the state was taken over by the Stalinist putsch which you could not claim to be communism. If you read Marx, then these countries didn't follow the pattern that he expected, where communism would follow a prolonged period of capitalist development. That has yet to happen. Have you read any Marx? (Not meant to be a silly question, I was just wondering what Marx you have read so we could discuss)" Yes I've read Marx, its a heavily flawed analysis because it is based on a zero sum fallacy and ignores the role of productivity in the economy. Thats why Marx didn't see the rise of a middle class, which proved his predictions wrong. Lefties always claim that "*insert poor performing economy* wasn't really communist" because the track record of every economy where the state owned all the means of production is indefensible. There are only three types of economy: capitalist, state capitalist or communist. All the rich countries are capitalist except a few recent new comers which are state capitalist (saudi arabia due to oil and china due to abandoning communism and setting up special economic zones). There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east. Nice try but grew up in Manchester
Doesn't explain the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of your statements, and tbh, anyone could make offhand comments like that. I don't believe you, and don't really care.
What's your smart answer to the hard working nurses relying on food banks in your wealthy utopia. Should they just stop whingeing? "Nurses (and soldiers) are paid well below the market value for their labour because their labour is not determined by the market. In the case of soldiers i would certainly not want their labour determined by the market (i.e. privatised military) therefore the military covenant (which is broken in my opinion) should have stronger provisions for them including references to median incomes and provision of care (e.g. for PTSD). Nurses could have a similar covenant if we must have an NHS (i don't want one) or we could have a mandatory insuranced backed system which would be more expensive but provide better care than we currently get. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east. Nice try but grew up in Manchester
Doesn't explain the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of your statements, and tbh, anyone could make offhand comments like that. I don't believe you, and don't really care.
What's your smart answer to the hard working nurses relying on food banks in your wealthy utopia. Should they just stop whingeing?
Nurses (and soldiers) are paid well below the market value for their labour because their labour is not determined by the market. In the case of soldiers i would certainly not want their labour determined by the market (i.e. privatised military) therefore the military covenant (which is broken in my opinion) should have stronger provisions for them including references to median incomes and provision of care (e.g. for PTSD). Nurses could have a similar covenant if we must have an NHS (i don't want one) or we could have a mandatory insuranced backed system which would be more expensive but provide better care than we currently get. "No NHS...You should do stand up comedy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east. Nice try but grew up in Manchester
Doesn't explain the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of your statements, and tbh, anyone could make offhand comments like that. I don't believe you, and don't really care.
What's your smart answer to the hard working nurses relying on food banks in your wealthy utopia. Should they just stop whingeing?
Nurses (and soldiers) are paid well below the market value for their labour because their labour is not determined by the market. In the case of soldiers i would certainly not want their labour determined by the market (i.e. privatised military) therefore the military covenant (which is broken in my opinion) should have stronger provisions for them including references to median incomes and provision of care (e.g. for PTSD). Nurses could have a similar covenant if we must have an NHS (i don't want one) or we could have a mandatory insuranced backed system which would be more expensive but provide better care than we currently get. No NHS...You should do stand up comedy."Yeah no NHS like the other 17 countries in the world with superior healthcare systems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east. Nice try but grew up in Manchester
Doesn't explain the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of your statements, and tbh, anyone could make offhand comments like that. I don't believe you, and don't really care.
What's your smart answer to the hard working nurses relying on food banks in your wealthy utopia. Should they just stop whingeing?
Nurses (and soldiers) are paid well below the market value for their labour because their labour is not determined by the market. In the case of soldiers i would certainly not want their labour determined by the market (i.e. privatised military) therefore the military covenant (which is broken in my opinion) should have stronger provisions for them including references to median incomes and provision of care (e.g. for PTSD). Nurses could have a similar covenant if we must have an NHS (i don't want one) or we could have a mandatory insuranced backed system which would be more expensive but provide better care than we currently get. No NHS...You should do stand up comedy.
Yeah no NHS like the other 17 countries in the world with superior healthcare systems. "What happens to the poor in these countries.You really dont like the poor do you..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. " Hahaha. How do you think most of the wealthy became wealthy? Here's something for you to ponder on: After the successful invasion of 1066, William the Conqueror divided the country approximately thus: a third for the crown, a third for the church and a third for his barons. The descendents of those barons still own about A fifth of the land in the UK. Unless I'm mistaken, the church is the biggest landowner. The rich mostly became rich by taking their wealth, not earning it. There are exceptions, but not many. The landowning gentry, by and large became the Bourgeoisie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. Plus, we've not really had a communist state. We had a brief period post the 1917 October revolution where people's wealth and freedoms increased massively but the state was taken over by the Stalinist putsch which you could not claim to be communism. If you read Marx, then these countries didn't follow the pattern that he expected, where communism would follow a prolonged period of capitalist development. That has yet to happen. Have you read any Marx? (Not meant to be a silly question, I was just wondering what Marx you have read so we could discuss) Yes I've read Marx, its a heavily flawed analysis because it is based on a zero sum fallacy and ignores the role of productivity in the economy. Thats why Marx didn't see the rise of a middle class, which proved his predictions wrong. Lefties always claim that "*insert poor performing economy* wasn't really communist" because the track record of every economy where the state owned all the means of production is indefensible. There are only three types of economy: capitalist, state capitalist or communist. All the rich countries are capitalist except a few recent new comers which are state capitalist (saudi arabia due to oil and china due to abandoning communism and setting up special economic zones). There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. " I always believed you, when you said you'd read Marx. Up until this post. Didn't see the rise of the bourgeoisie? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. " Nordic Social Economic model far superior in terms of living standards. Yes they are capitalist but combined with very generous welfare policies that are decidedly socialist. Education, happiness, life expectancy and exceptional GDP capita makes these socialist countries a shining example of what can be achieved. There is no reason we couldn't have that in the UK other than those at the top have no interest in helping those at the bottom. Greed and self interest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. Plus, we've not really had a communist state. We had a brief period post the 1917 October revolution where people's wealth and freedoms increased massively but the state was taken over by the Stalinist putsch which you could not claim to be communism. If you read Marx, then these countries didn't follow the pattern that he expected, where communism would follow a prolonged period of capitalist development. That has yet to happen. Have you read any Marx? (Not meant to be a silly question, I was just wondering what Marx you have read so we could discuss) Yes I've read Marx, its a heavily flawed analysis because it is based on a zero sum fallacy and ignores the role of productivity in the economy. Thats why Marx didn't see the rise of a middle class, which proved his predictions wrong. Lefties always claim that "*insert poor performing economy* wasn't really communist" because the track record of every economy where the state owned all the means of production is indefensible. There are only three types of economy: capitalist, state capitalist or communist. All the rich countries are capitalist except a few recent new comers which are state capitalist (saudi arabia due to oil and china due to abandoning communism and setting up special economic zones). There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. I always believed you, when you said you'd read Marx. Up until this post. Didn't see the rise of the bourgeoisie? "Oh sorry you're going to tell me the middle class are the "petty bourgeoisie" now? Ok here comes the semantic arguements because you don't want to address the central issue of all economics which is productivity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah just noticed from your profile you don't like to leave the comfort of Berkshire and the south east. Nice try but grew up in Manchester
Doesn't explain the breathtaking arrogance and ignorance of your statements, and tbh, anyone could make offhand comments like that. I don't believe you, and don't really care.
What's your smart answer to the hard working nurses relying on food banks in your wealthy utopia. Should they just stop whingeing?
Nurses (and soldiers) are paid well below the market value for their labour because their labour is not determined by the market. In the case of soldiers i would certainly not want their labour determined by the market (i.e. privatised military) therefore the military covenant (which is broken in my opinion) should have stronger provisions for them including references to median incomes and provision of care (e.g. for PTSD). Nurses could have a similar covenant if we must have an NHS (i don't want one) or we could have a mandatory insuranced backed system which would be more expensive but provide better care than we currently get. No NHS...You should do stand up comedy.
Yeah no NHS like the other 17 countries in the world with superior healthcare systems. What happens to the poor in these countries.You really dont like the poor do you.. "They get healthcare, have you left this country before? Do you think everything country without an NHS are pig shit feudal farmers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Hahaha. How do you think most of the wealthy became wealthy? Here's something for you to ponder on: After the successful invasion of 1066, William the Conqueror divided the country approximately thus: a third for the crown, a third for the church and a third for his barons. The descendents of those barons still own about A fifth of the land in the UK. Unless I'm mistaken, the church is the biggest landowner. The rich mostly became rich by taking their wealth, not earning it. There are exceptions, but not many. The landowning gentry, by and large became the Bourgeoisie." Except our national wealth per head was lower than china right until the 1600's so what changed after that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. Nordic Social Economic model far superior in terms of living standards. Yes they are capitalist but combined with very generous welfare policies that are decidedly socialist. Education, happiness, life expectancy and exceptional GDP capita makes these socialist countries a shining example of what can be achieved. There is no reason we couldn't have that in the UK other than those at the top have no interest in helping those at the bottom. Greed and self interest. " Ah the almost perfect people. Have you considered that what works in small countries cannot always be scaled up to one with ~60m people? If you really cared about the poor and wanted socialism then you'd be marching on the streets for the UK to have an industrial strategy for artificial intelligence / UBI system as that could achieve it. The nordic model can't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing. "Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. "Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA.. "Theres a theme this week of lefties setting increasingly low benchmarks and congratulating themselves when they exceed them. When cuba has a system that ranks higher than some proper EU countries then let me know. And visit them - they need the tourist money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA..
Theres a theme this week of lefties setting increasingly low benchmarks and congratulating themselves when they exceed them. When cuba has a system that ranks higher than some proper EU countries then let me know. And visit them - they need the tourist money. "Im extreme green not left all have you know.I would say the theme from the far right was ."Give me your tired and your poor and I'll piss on them" .Cuba does seem to get under the skin of capitalists though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. Plus, we've not really had a communist state. We had a brief period post the 1917 October revolution where people's wealth and freedoms increased massively but the state was taken over by the Stalinist putsch which you could not claim to be communism. If you read Marx, then these countries didn't follow the pattern that he expected, where communism would follow a prolonged period of capitalist development. That has yet to happen. Have you read any Marx? (Not meant to be a silly question, I was just wondering what Marx you have read so we could discuss) Yes I've read Marx, its a heavily flawed analysis because it is based on a zero sum fallacy and ignores the role of productivity in the economy. Thats why Marx didn't see the rise of a middle class, which proved his predictions wrong. Lefties always claim that "*insert poor performing economy* wasn't really communist" because the track record of every economy where the state owned all the means of production is indefensible. There are only three types of economy: capitalist, state capitalist or communist. All the rich countries are capitalist except a few recent new comers which are state capitalist (saudi arabia due to oil and china due to abandoning communism and setting up special economic zones). There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. I always believed you, when you said you'd read Marx. Up until this post. Didn't see the rise of the bourgeoisie?
Oh sorry you're going to tell me the middle class are the "petty bourgeoisie" now? Ok here comes the semantic arguements because you don't want to address the central issue of all economics which is productivity. "They are bourgeoisie, petit and grand. So; have you read Marx, or is that statement you make (almost word for word) quite a lot, a quote? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. Plus, we've not really had a communist state. We had a brief period post the 1917 October revolution where people's wealth and freedoms increased massively but the state was taken over by the Stalinist putsch which you could not claim to be communism. If you read Marx, then these countries didn't follow the pattern that he expected, where communism would follow a prolonged period of capitalist development. That has yet to happen. Have you read any Marx? (Not meant to be a silly question, I was just wondering what Marx you have read so we could discuss) Yes I've read Marx, its a heavily flawed analysis because it is based on a zero sum fallacy and ignores the role of productivity in the economy. Thats why Marx didn't see the rise of a middle class, which proved his predictions wrong. Lefties always claim that "*insert poor performing economy* wasn't really communist" because the track record of every economy where the state owned all the means of production is indefensible. There are only three types of economy: capitalist, state capitalist or communist. All the rich countries are capitalist except a few recent new comers which are state capitalist (saudi arabia due to oil and china due to abandoning communism and setting up special economic zones). There are no communist economies that have provided living standards that the median citizen would envy. This is mainly due to the appauling productivity they achieve. I always believed you, when you said you'd read Marx. Up until this post. Didn't see the rise of the bourgeoisie?
Oh sorry you're going to tell me the middle class are the "petty bourgeoisie" now? Ok here comes the semantic arguements because you don't want to address the central issue of all economics which is productivity.
They are bourgeoisie, petit and grand.
So; have you read Marx, or is that statement you make (almost word for word) quite a lot, a quote?"Yes i have listened to it on audio book which is how i get through all books that aren't especially gripping reads - try getting through Mein Kampf on paperbook. If we could actually talk about something meaningful, are you suggesting that marx predicted fhe rise of a large middle class? Effectively that our society would look like it does today? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA..
Theres a theme this week of lefties setting increasingly low benchmarks and congratulating themselves when they exceed them. When cuba has a system that ranks higher than some proper EU countries then let me know. And visit them - they need the tourist money. Im extreme green not left all have you know.I would say the theme from the far right was ."Give me your tired and your poor and I'll piss on them" .Cuba does seem to get under the skin of capitalists though. "Not at all, nordic countries do but cuba has nothing i want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA..
Theres a theme this week of lefties setting increasingly low benchmarks and congratulating themselves when they exceed them. When cuba has a system that ranks higher than some proper EU countries then let me know. And visit them - they need the tourist money. Im extreme green not left all have you know.I would say the theme from the far right was ."Give me your tired and your poor and I'll piss on them" .Cuba does seem to get under the skin of capitalists though.
Not at all, nordic countries do but cuba has nothing i want."Beautiful beaches beatiful women.Great Rum.Great education system great health care.Thats all after being kept down by the USA.Who wanted to punish them to collapse.Cuba did well all things considered and even managed to help the poor on the planet better than the G8. In the words of samuel l Jackson. "Motherfucker please." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i've been to cuba quite a few times and every time we've stayed with locals for the entire duration .... for the last ten years or so we've taken piano parts and restoration equipment to rescue their instruments which suffer in the climate .... beautiful place and great people ... shame the usa's embargo and what amounts to a blockade of their ports has been shitting all over them for longer than i've been alive " Lol, how about their own blockade at the ports? The one on their people leaving. If it's such a paradise then why did 15% of their population flee to miami last time the border was open? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA..
Theres a theme this week of lefties setting increasingly low benchmarks and congratulating themselves when they exceed them. When cuba has a system that ranks higher than some proper EU countries then let me know. And visit them - they need the tourist money. Im extreme green not left all have you know.I would say the theme from the far right was ."Give me your tired and your poor and I'll piss on them" .Cuba does seem to get under the skin of capitalists though.
Not at all, nordic countries do but cuba has nothing i want. Beautiful beaches beatiful women.Great Rum.Great education system great health care.Thats all after being kept down by the USA.Who wanted to punish them to collapse.Cuba did well all things considered and even managed to help the poor on the planet better than the G8.
In the words of samuel l Jackson. "Motherfucker please." "The problem is that when you describe the worlds 39th best healthcare system as "great" then you run out of words to describe why the other 38 are better than it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i've been to cuba quite a few times and every time we've stayed with locals for the entire duration .... for the last ten years or so we've taken piano parts and restoration equipment to rescue their instruments which suffer in the climate .... beautiful place and great people ... shame the usa's embargo and what amounts to a blockade of their ports has been shitting all over them for longer than i've been alive Lol, how about their own blockade at the ports? The one on their people leaving. If it's such a paradise then why did 15% of their population flee to miami last time the border was open? " you're talking about the mariel crisis lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"i've been to cuba quite a few times and every time we've stayed with locals for the entire duration .... for the last ten years or so we've taken piano parts and restoration equipment to rescue their instruments which suffer in the climate .... beautiful place and great people ... shame the usa's embargo and what amounts to a blockade of their ports has been shitting all over them for longer than i've been alive Lol, how about their own blockade at the ports? The one on their people leaving. If it's such a paradise then why did 15% of their population flee to miami last time the border was open? " Because the USA punished the people into poverty.If your poor you look for options out.Standard.I doubt you'd want more poor people comming here now would you.You cant stomach the ones we got.Surely you should be glad they dont all leave cuba. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Cuba provides more medical personnel to the developing world than all the G8 countries combined.But yes they are helping poor people. I know not your thing.
Oh gosh, have you been there? I have, i t's a horrible place. The reason they have so many doctors is because it's the best occupation for getting off the hell hole of an island and defecting (which 80% of cuba dreams off). But they don't put that in the brochure. Nothing to do with having a better life expectancy than all of latin america and the USA..
Theres a theme this week of lefties setting increasingly low benchmarks and congratulating themselves when they exceed them. When cuba has a system that ranks higher than some proper EU countries then let me know. And visit them - they need the tourist money. Im extreme green not left all have you know.I would say the theme from the far right was ."Give me your tired and your poor and I'll piss on them" .Cuba does seem to get under the skin of capitalists though.
Not at all, nordic countries do but cuba has nothing i want. Beautiful beaches beatiful women.Great Rum.Great education system great health care.Thats all after being kept down by the USA.Who wanted to punish them to collapse.Cuba did well all things considered and even managed to help the poor on the planet better than the G8.
In the words of samuel l Jackson. "Motherfucker please."
The problem is that when you describe the worlds 39th best healthcare system as "great" then you run out of words to describe why the other 38 are better than it. "or why the other 200 are worse than cuba. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. " That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle?" Equality isn't the goal of economics. Higher living standards is. There are of course variations in legal approaches etc but fundamentally the means of producition should be privately owned with the state playing the role of regulator and providing emergency services (inc. Defence). I'm not sure which differences in the detailed execution of that are most important to you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle? Equality isn't the goal of economics. Higher living standards is. There are of course variations in legal approaches etc but fundamentally the means of producition should be privately owned with the state playing the role of regulator and providing emergency services (inc. Defence). I'm not sure which differences in the detailed execution of that are most important to you? " Middle income families across Britain are seeing an "unprecedented collapse" in their living standards as rising costs and low pay wipe around £2,000 off the typical household budget. According to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, some of the biggest losers will be children pushed into poverty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle? Equality isn't the goal of economics. Higher living standards is. There are of course variations in legal approaches etc but fundamentally the means of producition should be privately owned with the state playing the role of regulator and providing emergency services (inc. Defence). I'm not sure which differences in the detailed execution of that are most important to you? Middle income families across Britain are seeing an "unprecedented collapse" in their living standards as rising costs and low pay wipe around £2,000 off the typical household budget. According to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, some of the biggest losers will be children pushed into poverty." Yeah Cuba and North Korea are catching up quickly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle? Equality isn't the goal of economics. Higher living standards is. There are of course variations in legal approaches etc but fundamentally the means of producition should be privately owned with the state playing the role of regulator and providing emergency services (inc. Defence). I'm not sure which differences in the detailed execution of that are most important to you? Middle income families across Britain are seeing an "unprecedented collapse" in their living standards as rising costs and low pay wipe around £2,000 off the typical household budget. According to the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, some of the biggest losers will be children pushed into poverty. Yeah Cuba and North Korea are catching up quickly "Is that down to tory policies.Maybe they should go on a fact finding mission.They look like they need a holiday now.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle? Equality isn't the goal of economics. Higher living standards is. There are of course variations in legal approaches etc but fundamentally the means of producition should be privately owned with the state playing the role of regulator and providing emergency services (inc. Defence). I'm not sure which differences in the detailed execution of that are most important to you? " Im interested in the outputs not the inputs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money Spending other people's money? I take it you never used schools, or hospitals, or roads, or the police, or the energy infrastructure, or sewerage systems, or etc etc etc then? Plus, how do you think the wealthy got that wealth? By exploiting other people's labour. They system that takes wealth from those who work hard and gives to the undeserving is not called socialism; you're thinking of capitalism. Theres the heart of socialism "the wealthy don't deserve their wealth so that justifies me taking it from them". I wonder which came first, the desire to take other peoples money or the justification for doing so. Again, you're confusing socialism with capitalism. How do you justify shareholders who do absolutely nothing in a business or industry milking off huge profits, whilst the workers suffer pay freezes, have their living conditions slashed, and the fruits of their labour stolen from them by their rich bosses? Who is the one stealing the wealth here? Certainly not the voter who merely wants well funded schools and a functioning NHS? No offence but you sound like a sheep from animal farm. People that live in capitalist countries have better living standards than those in communist ones so square that circle. That is true. However, what you have failed to address is the vast range of approaches to capitalism which lead to greater (or less) equality. The implication in your 'analysis', is that capitalism displays absolute homogeneity, which, clearly it doesnt. Want to square that circle? Equality isn't the goal of economics. Higher living standards is. There are of course variations in legal approaches etc but fundamentally the means of producition should be privately owned with the state playing the role of regulator and providing emergency services (inc. Defence). I'm not sure which differences in the detailed execution of that are most important to you? Im interested in the outputs not the inputs" Which outputs? Im interested in the living standard of the median citizen. Inequality doesn't interest me until the accumulation of rents at the top disrupts the process of creative destruction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It will be interesting to hear about the turnout stats High turnout for people who receive more in government services than they pay in taxes, voting to increase public spending funded via taxes on other people. Funny that. What, even in Kensington? Just on average. You get a mixture, you know some people feel guilty for inheriting wealth and become champagne socialists but most just like spending other peoples money The silver spooned elitist posh toffs in Kensington still haven't got over the Brexit vote going against them and voted for Labour as a bitter protest. Still Labour only get 262 seats and the conservatives have ended up on 318 seats (with 10 DUP makes a majority) so the overall vote has gone against them again. Exactly this. Brexit hurts the wealthy. " no it wouldn't in the end the cost always end up on the poor...when cost of production goes up the price goes up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
