FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Definition of Capitalism
Definition of Capitalism
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds like another case of Updog." Not sure what that means, do you agree with it or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds like another case of Updog. Not sure what that means, do you agree with it or not?" Not the response he wanted ... 
He's fucking with you dude ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds like another case of Updog. Not sure what that means, do you agree with it or not? Not the response he wanted ...
He's fucking with you dude ..."What's your opinion. You are one of the ones I really wanted to answer this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree with it, can’t see there’s anything to disagree with. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you want my opinion? "I want everyones opinions please, including yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It sounds like another case of Updog. Not sure what that means, do you agree with it or not? Not the response he wanted ...
He's fucking with you dude ..."Haha, they never answer this how you want ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude? "Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer? " It’s better than socialism, sounds lovely but doesn’t work. Only 6th form students think it does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question! "It's such a contrived statement that it feels like a trick question. Are you trying to define the limits of what is and isn't acceptable in a capitalist system? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question! "You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
It's such a contrived statement that it feels like a trick question. Are you trying to define the limits of what is and isn't acceptable in a capitalist system? "This forum is one of the few places where i encounter fruit cakes like yourself who describe themselves as anti-capitalist. I'm curious whether the capitalism you are against is the same as what i mean by capitalism. Some people are just against private property in principle, so they would disagree with the statement. I'm trying to understand whether you don't like the economic system we have, which i would say isn't true capitalism. Or whether you just don't like any private property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right?"Not quite. I'm saying that I'm only for capitalism as long as it helps humanity and therefore im against what we might call "crony capitalism". So I'm trying to understand whether people like you dislike "crony capitalism" or just any form of private property. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right?
Not quite. I'm saying that I'm only for capitalism as long as it helps humanity and therefore im against what we might call "crony capitalism". So I'm trying to understand whether people like you dislike "crony capitalism" or just any form of private property. "So what about state capitalism ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right?
Not quite. I'm saying that I'm only for capitalism as long as it helps humanity and therefore im against what we might call "crony capitalism". So I'm trying to understand whether people like you dislike "crony capitalism" or just any form of private property.
So what about state capitalism ?"It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. Gonna answer my fucking question any time soon?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I vote for ethical capitalism - how's that? " So does that definition meet your definition of ethical capitalism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That seems quite a purist idealised view of capitalism. And I don’t disagree with it. The real world is quite different from that. Where the wealthy and powerful are given massive breaks and systems of wealth extraction and concentration lead to increasing gaps between rich and poor. " But you agree, that is what capitalism should be? I don't think Adam Smith would disagree with it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That seems quite a purist idealised view of capitalism. And I don’t disagree with it. The real world is quite different from that. Where the wealthy and powerful are given massive breaks and systems of wealth extraction and concentration lead to increasing gaps between rich and poor. But you agree, that is what capitalism should be? I don't think Adam Smith would disagree with it" It seems a reasonable definition, but I’m not an economist | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That seems quite a purist idealised view of capitalism. And I don’t disagree with it. The real world is quite different from that. Where the wealthy and powerful are given massive breaks and systems of wealth extraction and concentration lead to increasing gaps between rich and poor. But you agree, that is what capitalism should be? I don't think Adam Smith would disagree with it It seems a reasonable definition, but I’m not an economist " Don't worry, economists aren't economists anymore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". " Seems like a false dichotomy with poorly constructed definitions I disagree with the simplistic frameworks given and reject the question as manipulative x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". Seems like a false dichotomy with poorly constructed definitions I disagree with the simplistic frameworks given and reject the question as manipulative x" Why is it a false dichotomy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I vote for ethical capitalism - how's that? So does that definition meet your definition of ethical capitalism? " No, I would want something far less ambiguous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I vote for ethical capitalism - how's that? So does that definition meet your definition of ethical capitalism? No, I would want something far less ambiguous." What's missing from it in your opinion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I vote for ethical capitalism - how's that? So does that definition meet your definition of ethical capitalism? No, I would want something far less ambiguous. What's missing from it in your opinion? " Clarity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right?
Not quite. I'm saying that I'm only for capitalism as long as it helps humanity and therefore im against what we might call "crony capitalism". So I'm trying to understand whether people like you dislike "crony capitalism" or just any form of private property.
So what about state capitalism ?
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. Gonna answer my fucking question any time soon? "The problem with capitalism is that it's not capitalist enough.There are to few capitalist not to many capitalist. You see majority of mankind serve the minority.The wealth is concentrated . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right?
Not quite. I'm saying that I'm only for capitalism as long as it helps humanity and therefore im against what we might call "crony capitalism". So I'm trying to understand whether people like you dislike "crony capitalism" or just any form of private property.
So what about state capitalism ?
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. Gonna answer my fucking question any time soon?
The problem with capitalism is that it's not capitalist enough.There are to few capitalist not to many capitalist.
You see majority of mankind serve the minority.The wealth is concentrated . "Do you think the wealth is less concentrated in Russia, Cuba, China or North Korea? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you getting at dude?
Do you agree with that statement? It's not a trick question!
You are talking about the definition of capitalism and if it can deliver social change .Does it help or does it hinder humanity .Am I right?
Not quite. I'm saying that I'm only for capitalism as long as it helps humanity and therefore im against what we might call "crony capitalism". So I'm trying to understand whether people like you dislike "crony capitalism" or just any form of private property.
So what about state capitalism ?
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. Gonna answer my fucking question any time soon?
The problem with capitalism is that it's not capitalist enough.There are to few capitalist not to many capitalist.
You see majority of mankind serve the minority.The wealth is concentrated .
Do you think the wealth is less concentrated in Russia, Cuba, China or North Korea? "No it's more concentrated . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there needs to be more clarity on the aims and objectives of the ‘strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality’. It all hinges on that. " Exactly, it does sound like a trick question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there needs to be more clarity on the aims and objectives of the ‘strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality’. It all hinges on that. " Not really. If you won't accept any system with private property then you're a hardcore commie or an anarchist. Assuming you will accept that then you either accept that regulation is not only there to ensure competition, but also to produce some desirable broader benefit. That means you aren't in favour of pure laissez-faire capitalism. Assuming you're cool with some wider purpose, you agree with the definition as it's written with no hidden clauses or trick conditions to follow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I admire the founding fathers ideas in America and could quite happily sign up to them. And I don't think you can deny Adam Smith was onto something. However, I do think that Smith was mistaken to a large extent and that the twists and turns Capitalism has taken in the 20th century have more to do with controlling the masses than freeing people." What was Smith mistaken about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I’ll bite..... There is no ethical capitalism....... Every luxury we have in 1st world is because someone is suffering in the third world.... The wealth gap people complain about in the first world is much greater to people in the third world.... Meaning a poor person in the 1st world is a millionaire to someone in the third world.... Any other economic system will make people in Government the wealthy class..." And there's this
You're op assumes anti-capitalists are fruit cakes. It doesn't make the effort to understand their legitimate gripes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there needs to be more clarity on the aims and objectives of the ‘strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality’. It all hinges on that. Not really. If you won't accept any system with private property then you're a hardcore commie or an anarchist. Assuming you will accept that then you either accept that regulation is not only there to ensure competition, but also to produce some desirable broader benefit. That means you aren't in favour of pure laissez-faire capitalism. Assuming you're cool with some wider purpose, you agree with the definition as it's written with no hidden clauses or trick conditions to follow. " Ha! Ok. I agree with the definition. But I’d like to caveat that statement that it assumes the ‘wider purpose’ is one in which I can get behind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think there needs to be more clarity on the aims and objectives of the ‘strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality’. It all hinges on that. Not really. If you won't accept any system with private property then you're a hardcore commie or an anarchist. Assuming you will accept that then you either accept that regulation is not only there to ensure competition, but also to produce some desirable broader benefit. That means you aren't in favour of pure laissez-faire capitalism. Assuming you're cool with some wider purpose, you agree with the definition as it's written with no hidden clauses or trick conditions to follow. Ha! Ok. I agree with the definition. But I’d like to caveat that statement that it assumes the ‘wider purpose’ is one in which I can get behind. " Hooray! A straight answer, now let's see if we can work on the fruit cakes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GK Chesterton called capitalism, the “economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.”" Well he sounds like a cunt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I’ll bite..... There is no ethical capitalism....... Every luxury we have in 1st world is because someone is suffering in the third world.... The wealth gap people complain about in the first world is much greater to people in the third world.... Meaning a poor person in the 1st world is a millionaire to someone in the third world.... Any other economic system will make people in Government the wealthy class... And there's this
You're op assumes anti-capitalists are fruit cakes. It doesn't make the effort to understand their legitimate gripes "There's probably not a country in the world id say is purely capitalist right now. So yes I'm very aware of legitimate problems in literally every economy in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ethical capitalism is a oxymoron. " . That's because we're not ethical!. You can introduce every system you want and we're still not going to be ethical. People need to get over this pipe dream, capitalism and democracy although not perfect is the best system we've tried that gets the best out of the most of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ethical capitalism is a oxymoron. " I can imagine it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GK Chesterton called capitalism, the “economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.” Well he sounds like a cunt " Well he was a well respected advocate for more capitalism not less. The problem he saw was as he said "a small group of capitalists who increasingly wield political power in their own behalf, and who use the economic process primarily to enrich themselves rather than as an instrument for the common good." So as I said before more capitalist not less is what is needed. I would of thought you would agree. Or are you Of the belief that to have wealthy people we need poor people We need more capitalists not less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GK Chesterton called capitalism, the “economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.” Well he sounds like a cunt Well he was a well respected advocate for more capitalism not less. The problem he saw was as he said "a small group of capitalists who increasingly wield political power in their own behalf, and who use the economic process primarily to enrich themselves rather than as an instrument for the common good." So as I said before more capitalist not less is what is needed. I would of thought you would agree. Or are you Of the belief that to have wealthy people we need poor people We need more capitalists not less. "The pareto distribution of wealth is not inherent to capitalism. As you acknowledge, it's worse in non-capitalist countries. There are many ways to deal with it that don't mean tearing up the principles of private property and free markets. I saw the word "class" and it triggered me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"GK Chesterton called capitalism, the “economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.” Well he sounds like a cunt Well he was a well respected advocate for more capitalism not less. The problem he saw was as he said "a small group of capitalists who increasingly wield political power in their own behalf, and who use the economic process primarily to enrich themselves rather than as an instrument for the common good." So as I said before more capitalist not less is what is needed. I would of thought you would agree. Or are you Of the belief that to have wealthy people we need poor people We need more capitalists not less.
The pareto distribution of wealth is not inherent to capitalism. As you acknowledge, it's worse in non-capitalist countries. There are many ways to deal with it that don't mean tearing up the principles of private property and free markets.
I saw the word "class" and it triggered me. "Do you need a hug from a lefty .Relax Chesterton is on your side . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too " No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. " Ok.... I still don't understand it though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though "Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property? If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though "Its all in the wording and the definitions of the words.You know how liberal is a dirty word for some and capitalism is a dirty word for some others. The question is .Is capitalism good or bad not weather other options are worse or better but does capitalism push mankind forward and make the world a better place regardless of all the shit stuff we can attribute to capitalism is it inherently better . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society? "I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . . "Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point. But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use. I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I admire the founding fathers ideas in America and could quite happily sign up to them. And I don't think you can deny Adam Smith was onto something. However, I do think that Smith was mistaken to a large extent and that the twists and turns Capitalism has taken in the 20th century have more to do with controlling the masses than freeing people. What was Smith mistaken about? " I think this is just too massive a can of worms to hope to flesh out on a thread on a swingers forum. For a start, a core of private property has basically been engineered through thuggery. Someone grabbed something long ago and told everyone else to keep their mitts off it or else. We see this threat of violence still under pins the entire notion of private property today... in an era where money is printed out of thin air. Smith and most right wingers have a simplistic rosy spectacled view of the invisible hand of the market. But it's long been abundantly evident that the market doesn't always lead to progress and can often result in terrible inhumanities and corruption. In short, the notion that the market, left to itself, is a force for good is mistaken. Right wingers tend to forgive the disasters of free market Capitalism because of the gains. In essence they don't mind throwing an entire generation or two under the bus because it'll lead to a boom in the third generation. As such, they usually have a heartless unsympathetic view of people who fall through the cracks (their own fault they say). And a preoccupation with theories that seem to work well on paper but work out disastrously in real life. They also turn a blind eye to cronyism. Worst of all, right wingers usually fail to place the current capitalist system in a history of rich elites (who largely inherited the wealth of plunder and war) subjugating people and controlling the reigns of power. They usually have a naively positive view of these rulers as good guys instead. Since they fail to see that today's capitalist system started in an already heavily unequal era, commenced under the auspices of the most corrupt cronyism. They fail to recognise that it's largely a system run by the few for the few at the expense of the many. As I said... too big a paradigm shift in looking at things to fit into a thread on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I admire the founding fathers ideas in America and could quite happily sign up to them. And I don't think you can deny Adam Smith was onto something. However, I do think that Smith was mistaken to a large extent and that the twists and turns Capitalism has taken in the 20th century have more to do with controlling the masses than freeing people. What was Smith mistaken about? I think this is just too massive a can of worms to hope to flesh out on a thread on a swingers forum. For a start, a core of private property has basically been engineered through thuggery. Someone grabbed something long ago and told everyone else to keep their mitts off it or else. We see this threat of violence still under pins the entire notion of private property today... in an era where money is printed out of thin air. " True " Smith and most right wingers have a simplistic rosy spectacled view of the invisible hand of the market. But it's long been abundantly evident that the market doesn't always lead to progress and can often result in terrible inhumanities and corruption. In short, the notion that the market, left to itself, is a force for good is mistaken. " Smith wasn't against all regulation " Right wingers tend to forgive the disasters of free market Capitalism because of the gains. In essence they don't mind throwing an entire generation or two under the bus because it'll lead to a boom in the third generation. As such, they usually have a heartless unsympathetic view of people who fall through the cracks (their own fault they say). " True " And a preoccupation with theories that seem to work well on paper but work out disastrously in real life. They also turn a blind eye to cronyism. " False " Worst of all, right wingers usually fail to place the current capitalist system in a history of rich elites (who largely inherited the wealth of plunder and war) subjugating people and controlling the reigns of power. They usually have a naively positive view of these rulers as good guys instead. Since they fail to see that today's capitalist system started in an already heavily unequal era, commenced under the auspices of the most corrupt cronyism. They fail to recognise that it's largely a system run by the few for the few at the expense of the many. " Marxist revisionist history drivel " As I said... too big a paradigm shift in looking at things to fit into a thread on here " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Camerons policy of austerity is a classic example of the violence of capitalism. Some guys on computers threw around a bunch of zeros and brought about a crash in the capitalist system. To rectify this the central bank just made some money appear out of thin air. Then it was up to the small people of Britain to pay back all these non existent zeros and printed money with severe cuts to their services, holds on pay, etc etc. In short, the money wasn't worth anything if there wasn't the assurance that it would be paid back, enforced by violence... even though the money didn't exist. Simplistic right wingers didn't see the injustice of this, nor the harm. They imagined that someone somewhere was owed this money for certain goods. These people didn't exist. The money was just printed out of thin air. The Greeks were right to tell them to fuck off. Indeed, the entire monetary system of countries has collapsed in the past and just been written off and started from scratch again without any needs for repayments. So their protests weren't without precedent. As for the harm. You can thank the violence of capitalism and Camerons austerity program for brexit and the rise of racism in the UK " Finally someone speaking some sense! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s hard to base an opinion when you have no context, citing your source would help op "Why does it matter who said it. It's not a two part question and you aren't obliged to agree with any of their other views. Just take the statement on its merits, it's designed to simplify a complex subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has a economics thread ever lead to someone getting sex on Fab?" Yup, it ain't my looks they go for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s hard to base an opinion when you have no context, citing your source would help op
Why does it matter who said it. It's not a two part question and you aren't obliged to agree with any of their other views. Just take the statement on its merits, it's designed to simplify a complex subject. "It matters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". " I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s hard to base an opinion when you have no context, citing your source would help op
Why does it matter who said it. It's not a two part question and you aren't obliged to agree with any of their other views. Just take the statement on its merits, it's designed to simplify a complex subject.
It matters "No it doesn't. This is the problem with you left wing nutjobs and why you always create a cult of personality. You judge the person not what they say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s hard to base an opinion when you have no context, citing your source would help op
Why does it matter who said it. It's not a two part question and you aren't obliged to agree with any of their other views. Just take the statement on its merits, it's designed to simplify a complex subject.
It matters
No it doesn't. This is the problem with you left wing nutjobs and why you always create a cult of personality. You judge the person not what they say. "So if it doesn't matter why so triggered. Ok I'll let you off the hook so you can respond to brief case wankers excellent post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to..." There's a reason nobody ever died trying to cross the Berlin Wall from West to East. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Even if something is the best yet doesn't mean it couldn't be significantly improved upon. Heck at one point in time the flat earth theory was the best theory yet. As such, this classic defence of capitalism is both an attack on utopianism, that wonderful idea of forever trying to better society, and a call to stick with the status quo.
No sir. I don't like it one bit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to... There's a reason nobody ever died trying to cross the Berlin Wall from West to East. " That's the best you've got?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s hard to base an opinion when you have no context, citing your source would help op
Why does it matter who said it. It's not a two part question and you aren't obliged to agree with any of their other views. Just take the statement on its merits, it's designed to simplify a complex subject.
It matters
No it doesn't. This is the problem with you left wing nutjobs and why you always create a cult of personality. You judge the person not what they say. So if it doesn't matter why so triggered.
Ok I'll let you off the hook so you can respond to brief case wankers excellent post. "It's not brilliant. Just because there are valid criticisms of all systems, doesn't mean those systems are equally valid after the criticisms are accounted for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find the philosophy of "it's the best system we've invented" to be worryingly myopic. Can you imagine if science hung up its laurels on a theory and stopped trying to test and develop and criticise it because "it's the best theory we've invented"?!?
Even if something is the best yet doesn't mean it couldn't be significantly improved upon. Heck at one point in time the flat earth theory was the best theory yet. As such, this classic defence of capitalism is both an attack on utopianism, that wonderful idea of forever trying to better society, and a call to stick with the status quo.
No sir. I don't like it one bit "You got any other ideas for a better system ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find the philosophy of "it's the best system we've invented" to be worryingly myopic. Can you imagine if science hung up its laurels on a theory and stopped trying to test and develop and criticise it because "it's the best theory we've invented"?!?
Even if something is the best yet doesn't mean it couldn't be significantly improved upon. Heck at one point in time the flat earth theory was the best theory yet. As such, this classic defence of capitalism is both an attack on utopianism, that wonderful idea of forever trying to better society, and a call to stick with the status quo.
No sir. I don't like it one bit
You got any other ideas for a better system ? "Sure. Plenty. (poker face) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to... There's a reason nobody ever died trying to cross the Berlin Wall from West to East. That's the best you've got? "Would you like some stats on how much cheaper goods like cars, TVs, smartphones, laptops and food have become in capitalist countries? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find the philosophy of "it's the best system we've invented" to be worryingly myopic. Can you imagine if science hung up its laurels on a theory and stopped trying to test and develop and criticise it because "it's the best theory we've invented"?!?
Even if something is the best yet doesn't mean it couldn't be significantly improved upon. Heck at one point in time the flat earth theory was the best theory yet. As such, this classic defence of capitalism is both an attack on utopianism, that wonderful idea of forever trying to better society, and a call to stick with the status quo.
No sir. I don't like it one bit "Can you imagine if every time we ran a science experiment then millions of people starved to death? How many times would you want to run that experiment Mr Compassion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to... There's a reason nobody ever died trying to cross the Berlin Wall from West to East. That's the best you've got?
Would you like some stats on how much cheaper goods like cars, TVs, smartphones, laptops and food have become in capitalist countries? "I think that's a very narrow way of looking at things. As someone else has alluded to earlier in the thread - at what cost? Capitalism should not be a zero sum game, and yet all too often the gains of one set of people are at the expense of others. Or at the expense of all, if we were talking something like environmental impact. For instance, the influence and power of the petrochemical industry has actively inhibited innovation and investment in renewable energy sources...this is anathema to the foundation principles of capitalism, which is supposed to *promote* innovation and investment. Capitalism simply doesn't work. Or rather, it doesn't do what it says on the tin. But that's not its fault, it's ours... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to... There's a reason nobody ever died trying to cross the Berlin Wall from West to East. That's the best you've got?
Would you like some stats on how much cheaper goods like cars, TVs, smartphones, laptops and food have become in capitalist countries?
I think that's a very narrow way of looking at things. As someone else has alluded to earlier in the thread - at what cost?
Capitalism should not be a zero sum game, and yet all too often the gains of one set of people are at the expense of others.
Or at the expense of all, if we were talking something like environmental impact.
For instance, the influence and power of the petrochemical industry has actively inhibited innovation and investment in renewable energy sources...this is anathema to the foundation principles of capitalism, which is supposed to *promote* innovation and investment.
Capitalism simply doesn't work. Or rather, it doesn't do what it says on the tin.
But that's not its fault, it's ours..."Environmental impact is the best criticism that can be made of laissez faire capitalism. It's only when you look at the Environmental record of the Soviet Union and China that you realise non-capitalist systems aren't the solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think modern capitalism is informed by ugly Darwinism. This idea that if it was truly left to its own devices the market would evolve through selective pressure into something wonderful... and screw who it crushes along the way. They're just the weak and unworthy. Indeed Darwin himself got his ideas at least in part from Malthus I believe... and quite probably Adam Smith too. (Hmm that's a curious area of study. I wonder if there's a book on that cross pollination) I just don't think this is true of nature nor markets. And if you're talking about regulation then you're effectively not a capitalist imo as you recognise that the markets can't be trusted and the system needs to be control and guided to help benefit people and try to ensure wealth trickles down not up, whereas a capitalist doesn't see that imo " Utter drivel. There are literally no influential capitalist thinkers who advocate zero regulation. There never have been and there never will be. Just like none have ever said they want a privatised military. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think modern capitalism is informed by ugly Darwinism. This idea that if it was truly left to its own devices the market would evolve through selective pressure into something wonderful... and screw who it crushes along the way. They're just the weak and unworthy. Indeed Darwin himself got his ideas at least in part from Malthus I believe... and quite probably Adam Smith too. (Hmm that's a curious area of study. I wonder if there's a book on that cross pollination) I just don't think this is true of nature nor markets. And if you're talking about regulation then you're effectively not a capitalist imo as you recognise that the markets can't be trusted and the system needs to be control and guided to help benefit people and try to ensure wealth trickles down not up, whereas a capitalist doesn't see that imo Utter drivel. There are literally no influential capitalist thinkers who advocate zero regulation. There never have been and there never will be. Just like none have ever said they want a privatised military. " Then they've all compromised and are on relative levels of the slope towards socialism  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think modern capitalism is informed by ugly Darwinism. This idea that if it was truly left to its own devices the market would evolve through selective pressure into something wonderful... and screw who it crushes along the way. They're just the weak and unworthy. Indeed Darwin himself got his ideas at least in part from Malthus I believe... and quite probably Adam Smith too. (Hmm that's a curious area of study. I wonder if there's a book on that cross pollination) I just don't think this is true of nature nor markets. And if you're talking about regulation then you're effectively not a capitalist imo as you recognise that the markets can't be trusted and the system needs to be control and guided to help benefit people and try to ensure wealth trickles down not up, whereas a capitalist doesn't see that imo Utter drivel. There are literally no influential capitalist thinkers who advocate zero regulation. There never have been and there never will be. Just like none have ever said they want a privatised military. " Do you not see influential capitalists controlling politicians in the USA.Its mist evident over the pond .Are they lobbying for the greater good of humanity ..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think modern capitalism is informed by ugly Darwinism. This idea that if it was truly left to its own devices the market would evolve through selective pressure into something wonderful... and screw who it crushes along the way. They're just the weak and unworthy. Indeed Darwin himself got his ideas at least in part from Malthus I believe... and quite probably Adam Smith too. (Hmm that's a curious area of study. I wonder if there's a book on that cross pollination) I just don't think this is true of nature nor markets. And if you're talking about regulation then you're effectively not a capitalist imo as you recognise that the markets can't be trusted and the system needs to be control and guided to help benefit people and try to ensure wealth trickles down not up, whereas a capitalist doesn't see that imo Utter drivel. There are literally no influential capitalist thinkers who advocate zero regulation. There never have been and there never will be. Just like none have ever said they want a privatised military. Do you not see influential capitalists controlling politicians in the USA.Its mist evident over the pond .Are they lobbying for the greater good of humanity ..?" I see it. What's the link? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". I consider myself non-partisan (as in I have no allegiance to a political party) but generally left-leaning in that I believe in a societal structure that supports the weaker members of society, even if it means the stronger take on a larger burden. Your question is too contrived, too loaded and too bullshitty. If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to... There's a reason nobody ever died trying to cross the Berlin Wall from West to East. That's the best you've got?
Would you like some stats on how much cheaper goods like cars, TVs, smartphones, laptops and food have become in capitalist countries?
I think that's a very narrow way of looking at things. As someone else has alluded to earlier in the thread - at what cost?
Capitalism should not be a zero sum game, and yet all too often the gains of one set of people are at the expense of others.
Or at the expense of all, if we were talking something like environmental impact.
For instance, the influence and power of the petrochemical industry has actively inhibited innovation and investment in renewable energy sources...this is anathema to the foundation principles of capitalism, which is supposed to *promote* innovation and investment.
Capitalism simply doesn't work. Or rather, it doesn't do what it says on the tin.
But that's not its fault, it's ours...
Environmental impact is the best criticism that can be made of laissez faire capitalism. It's only when you look at the Environmental record of the Soviet Union and China that you realise non-capitalist systems aren't the solution. "I'd disagree that it's the best criticism that can be made of laissez faire...I'd say that the worst thing about laissez faire is it assumes an intrinsic morality within society negates the need for regulation, when the truth is humans are not inherently ethical - as evidenced by things such as the Milgram experiment. When absolved of culpability, we essentially revert to sociopathy, and so the assumption that "Just let things take their natural course, the market will sort it all out" becomes highly dangerous (and please don't bother rolling out the usual lines about Mao and Stalin...yes, we already know, and that's going to take this off in a different tangent that loses this more salient line of argumemt) This notion that people and society should be afforded ultimate and unfettered freedom with what to do with their money often manifests itself in concepts such as the outright abolition of taxes, and leaving it up to the philanthropic sentiments of individuals to dole out charity as they see fit, rather than been mandated into contributing collectively - which may have been fine in a bygone era, when the ethics and morals were far more codified and adhered to...but these days? Nah mate. Firstly - have you seen how many people refuse to give up their seat on a train or bus to someone elderly or disabled, even though they're in the priority seat? People are a bunch of counts. You can't just leave it up to them unless you want to live in a cunty world. Secondly, is it just some strange coincidence that every CEO/MD or Head of every charity is a multi-millionaire?
The best criticism of laissez faire is it not only leads to, but actively encourages, the "Fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack" mentality... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh fuck off. Why are we don't here with all the looney tunes. We'll get the real fruit cakes joining soon. "Oh, the irony. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". " In the main have to agree with you,we need capitalism but there must be checks and balances but not rigid control there is a difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To what extent do my fellow formuites agree with this statement: "We are in favour of capitalism, if by that term we mean an economic system that recognises the positive role of business, the market, private property, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector. We are against capitalism, if by that term you mean freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework that places it at the service of human freedom in its totality". In the main have to agree with you,we need capitalism but there must be checks and balances but not rigid control there is a difference" Wahoo, some people can answer a simple question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best criticism of laissez faire is it not only leads to, but actively encourages, the "Fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack" mentality..." Now that's a better definition of the Capitalism I'm averse to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the worst thing about laissez faire is it assumes an intrinsic morality within society negates the need for regulation, when the truth is humans are not inherently ethical " I just wanted to point out the irony that only a couple of days ago broken was on a thread asserting human nature is basically amoral. So in that context he would've agreed with you. I wonder how he squares that with a faith in free market Capitalism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the worst thing about laissez faire is it assumes an intrinsic morality within society negates the need for regulation, when the truth is humans are not inherently ethical I just wanted to point out the irony that only a couple of days ago broken was on a thread asserting human nature is basically amoral. So in that context he would've agreed with you. I wonder how he squares that with a faith in free market Capitalism "Well there's a strawman. I agree with the statement at the start so don't pretend I think the invisible hand solves all. It's not that human nature is amoral, it's immoral. I'm restraining myself from clubbing you over the head right now and wearing your teeth as a necklace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the worst thing about laissez faire is it assumes an intrinsic morality within society negates the need for regulation, when the truth is humans are not inherently ethical I just wanted to point out the irony that only a couple of days ago broken was on a thread asserting human nature is basically amoral. So in that context he would've agreed with you. I wonder how he squares that with a faith in free market Capitalism
Well there's a strawman. I agree with the statement at the start so don't pretend I think the invisible hand solves all. It's not that human nature is amoral, it's immoral. I'm restraining myself from clubbing you over the head right now and wearing your teeth as a necklace. "They are nice teeth I'll give you that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the worst thing about laissez faire is it assumes an intrinsic morality within society negates the need for regulation, when the truth is humans are not inherently ethical I just wanted to point out the irony that only a couple of days ago broken was on a thread asserting human nature is basically amoral. So in that context he would've agreed with you. I wonder how he squares that with a faith in free market Capitalism "I think in a sense, it kind of links back to Maggie's "there's no such thing as society" statement, which is often truncated in this fashion and misses out the next bit: "There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour." The problem (as with so much of economics - hence the 'dismal science' label) is that it is founded upon untested, unverified and unchallenged assumptions...such as acting in one's own self interest being to the benefit of all. I think my favourite ever dodgy assumption was in a standard economic text used widely at undergraduate level, Samuelson if memory serves me correctly... In it, the explanation of supply and demand curves requires the markets to be cleared before trade begins, and so the assumption is made that resources are evenly distributed! So in essence, what one of the foundation concepts of capitalism requires in order to work, is a benevolent communist dictator to redistribute everything  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't really take any talent to criticise. Takes a lot of talent to find better solutions. " More talent than I've got! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't really take any talent to criticise. Takes a lot of talent to find better solutions. " Is that long hand for pfft? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(I do also really like the 'representative agents' assumption as well..."Ahhh - it's a bit hard doing the sums if we model an economy based on loads of people with different preferences, let's just assume that everybody pretty much has exactly the same mindset as everyone else!") You gotta laugh..." I once got chatting to an economist on the train. I enfused that it must be a fascinating discipline trying to predict the psychology of crowds reacting to different situations. They looked at me blankly and said "nah it's just maths". That was the day I finally understood why the 2008 crash happened | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(I do also really like the 'representative agents' assumption as well..."Ahhh - it's a bit hard doing the sums if we model an economy based on loads of people with different preferences, let's just assume that everybody pretty much has exactly the same mindset as everyone else!") You gotta laugh... I once got chatting to an economist on the train. I enfused that it must be a fascinating discipline trying to predict the psychology of crowds reacting to different situations. They looked at me blankly and said "nah it's just maths". That was the day I finally understood why the 2008 crash happened " Ha ha i had a similar revelation. I was dating a girl who doing an economics degree and I asked how it was going. She complained about how much maths there was and I was like "what do you need maths for?" I didn't really understand it for a few more years, but after enough times of asking "how do you account for people doing this?" And being told they didn't, one day it clicked. Modern economics is a fraud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't really take any talent to criticise. Takes a lot of talent to find better solutions. Is that long hand for pfft? "A bit. I think that 60% of lefties just want to complain about whatever the established system is. If we were a communist country, the same people would be singing the praises of capitalism and saying how immoral communism is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't really take any talent to criticise. Takes a lot of talent to find better solutions. Is that long hand for pfft?
A bit. I think that 60% of lefties just want to complain about whatever the established system is. If we were a communist country, the same people would be singing the praises of capitalism and saying how immoral communism is. "I don't consider myself a lefty or a righty. The issues are more complex than that for me. So I wonder if you're somewhat stuck in an old way of looking at this. For me, the whole development of civilisation is one big endeavour, capitalism and communism, criticising and tweaking and seeking to improve things. The real axis of difference imo is between slow/no change pragmatism and revolutionary/big change idealism and between nationalism and internationalism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. ". You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no. The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society". Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!. "They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It doesn't really take any talent to criticise. Takes a lot of talent to find better solutions. Is that long hand for pfft?
A bit. I think that 60% of lefties just want to complain about whatever the established system is. If we were a communist country, the same people would be singing the praises of capitalism and saying how immoral communism is.
I don't consider myself a lefty or a righty. The issues are more complex than that for me. So I wonder if you're somewhat stuck in an old way of looking at this. For me, the whole development of civilisation is one big endeavour, capitalism and communism, criticising and tweaking and seeking to improve things. The real axis of difference imo is between slow/no change pragmatism and revolutionary/big change idealism and between nationalism and internationalism "Agree, I just like busting your balls sometimes. Left and right are pretty meaningless terms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!.
They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer. "I plan on visiting Cuba im taking a yacht over to the Caribbean .Its a fabulous country I've heard .Great food great ,scuba diving great women superb climate .Still very reasonable price wise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!.
They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer.
I plan on visiting Cuba im taking a yacht over to the Caribbean .Its a fabulous country I've heard .Great food great ,scuba diving great women superb climate .Still very reasonable price wise.
"So you are going to fuck off to Cuba? Right it's literally got the worst food in the world outside north Korea. Imagine a trade embargo stops much in the way of ingredients entering to start with and then you have a bunch of chefs who didn't choose their job and don't like it. You think that's a recipe for "great food?" The climate and scuba diving are great. The women are hit and miss. They tend to get bigger as they get older. Its not cheap. They have a second currency just to fuck over tourists and make sure you don't pay the same prices as locals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!.
They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer.
I plan on visiting Cuba im taking a yacht over to the Caribbean .Its a fabulous country I've heard .Great food great ,scuba diving great women superb climate .Still very reasonable price wise.
So you are going to fuck off to Cuba?
Right it's literally got the worst food in the world outside north Korea. Imagine a trade embargo stops much in the way of ingredients entering to start with and then you have a bunch of chefs who didn't choose their job and don't like it. You think that's a recipe for "great food?"
The climate and scuba diving are great.
The women are hit and miss. They tend to get bigger as they get older.
Its not cheap. They have a second currency just to fuck over tourists and make sure you don't pay the same prices as locals. "Dude the mooring fees are like $10 a night or 40 cents per foot ,the fuel is cheap as chips it's a hot spot for cruising on the cheap .Plenty if anchorage spots for free except in Havana . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!.
They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer.
I plan on visiting Cuba im taking a yacht over to the Caribbean .Its a fabulous country I've heard .Great food great ,scuba diving great women superb climate .Still very reasonable price wise.
So you are going to fuck off to Cuba?
Right it's literally got the worst food in the world outside north Korea. Imagine a trade embargo stops much in the way of ingredients entering to start with and then you have a bunch of chefs who didn't choose their job and don't like it. You think that's a recipe for "great food?"
The climate and scuba diving are great.
The women are hit and miss. They tend to get bigger as they get older.
Its not cheap. They have a second currency just to fuck over tourists and make sure you don't pay the same prices as locals.
Dude the mooring fees are like $10 a night or 40 cents per foot ,the fuel is cheap as chips it's a hot spot for cruising on the cheap .Plenty if anchorage spots for free except in Havana .
"We actually went there last month. It isn't cheap. Prices are similar to what you would pay in the UK. Obviously the locals pay a lot less. I don't have a problem with that, obviously the whole point of them letting tourists in is to fleece them of their hard currency and given their history they have a USP that other Caribbean countries don't have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!.
They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer.
I plan on visiting Cuba im taking a yacht over to the Caribbean .Its a fabulous country I've heard .Great food great ,scuba diving great women superb climate .Still very reasonable price wise.
So you are going to fuck off to Cuba?
Right it's literally got the worst food in the world outside north Korea. Imagine a trade embargo stops much in the way of ingredients entering to start with and then you have a bunch of chefs who didn't choose their job and don't like it. You think that's a recipe for "great food?"
The climate and scuba diving are great.
The women are hit and miss. They tend to get bigger as they get older.
Its not cheap. They have a second currency just to fuck over tourists and make sure you don't pay the same prices as locals.
Dude the mooring fees are like $10 a night or 40 cents per foot ,the fuel is cheap as chips it's a hot spot for cruising on the cheap .Plenty if anchorage spots for free except in Havana .
We actually went there last month. It isn't cheap. Prices are similar to what you would pay in the UK. Obviously the locals pay a lot less.
I don't have a problem with that, obviously the whole point of them letting tourists in is to fleece them of their hard currency and given their history they have a USP that other Caribbean countries don't have.
"From a sailing point of view of mooring a cruising yacht it's good value for money .Compartively to other destinations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!.
They could fuck off to Cuba, yes. I asked bobbangs why he doesn't, couldn't get a straight answer.
I plan on visiting Cuba im taking a yacht over to the Caribbean .Its a fabulous country I've heard .Great food great ,scuba diving great women superb climate .Still very reasonable price wise.
So you are going to fuck off to Cuba?
Right it's literally got the worst food in the world outside north Korea. Imagine a trade embargo stops much in the way of ingredients entering to start with and then you have a bunch of chefs who didn't choose their job and don't like it. You think that's a recipe for "great food?"
The climate and scuba diving are great.
The women are hit and miss. They tend to get bigger as they get older.
Its not cheap. They have a second currency just to fuck over tourists and make sure you don't pay the same prices as locals.
Dude the mooring fees are like $10 a night or 40 cents per foot ,the fuel is cheap as chips it's a hot spot for cruising on the cheap .Plenty if anchorage spots for free except in Havana .
We actually went there last month. It isn't cheap. Prices are similar to what you would pay in the UK. Obviously the locals pay a lot less.
I don't have a problem with that, obviously the whole point of them letting tourists in is to fleece them of their hard currency and given their history they have a USP that other Caribbean countries don't have.
"Yeah the history is cool and, fun fact, it's got one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Alcohol was cheap, but food wasn't. Which made its disgusting taste all the more worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If capitalism worked as intended, it would be a brilliant system in which healthy competition drove down prices of products and services to the point where they were marginally above the cost of production, where the workforce were paid a fair wage for their labour, people and markets made rational decisions, markets were efficient (in the true economic sense, not the common or colloquial sense) and determined the right price every time and market forces ensured that left unhindered, the market tended towards equilibrium and was inherently (mostly) stable. Capitalism doesn't work as intended. So just like criticising communism often misses the point - the problem is not the system, but rather the implementation of it - criticising capitalism falls into the same trap; the failure is not of the system itself, but rather the implementation of it. As the expression goes - "In Communism, Man exploits Man. In Capitalism it's the other way round" I'm sure as economic systems, both are equally fantastic when they work as they're supposed to - it's just we'll never know, because neither has and likely never will work as they're supposed to..." I like this and to me it's a question of how people engage with the system. All this talk about the 1% and the 99% is a nice headline but too simple. Anti-capitalist ideas are often more rooted in an envy and hatred of the rich than a desire to help the poor. If the conditions are calibrated so that everyone is relatively prosperous (or at least have the means to be...availability of opportunities, capacity to spend less and still cover basic needs e.g. UK) then in many respects who cares about the billionaires. Anti-capitalist types often perpetuate the things that sustain poverty in other countries via their consumer habits and rely on others to give them well paying jobs that don't create value (making or improving stuff) but instead leach the economic system they complain about (advertising, customer "service") to sustain their affluent lifestyles and enjoy a range of goods and services that wouldn't exist if someone else didn't go and try to make some money. They also engage regularly with all the biggest monopolies...Facebook, Google, amazon, designer goods etc. It's a blindness to how the world around them is working. There is a lot that can be done to help poverty that doesn't involve lynching the ultrarich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best criticism of laissez faire is it not only leads to, but actively encourages, the "Fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack" mentality... Now that's a better definition of the Capitalism I'm averse to "Yes but its a criticism of human nature and not capitalism. The same thing happens in every regime. Hierarchies exist always but how unfair they are can be tempered. Side note - has the internet nudged everyone into turning every argument into some BS about hitler/communism/mao/stalin....choose your despot of choice...I'm guilty myself......hyperextension of the point to absurdity....the past doesn't have to repeat itself in the same way. It makes for a boring stuck in the mud on both sides debate and closes your thinking when you become encamped in the imagined endpoint.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best criticism of laissez faire is it not only leads to, but actively encourages, the "Fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack" mentality... Now that's a better definition of the Capitalism I'm averse to
Yes but its a criticism of human nature and not capitalism. The same thing happens in every regime. Hierarchies exist always but how unfair they are can be tempered.
Side note - has the internet nudged everyone into turning every argument into some BS about hitler/communism/mao/stalin....choose your despot of choice...I'm guilty myself......hyperextension of the point to absurdity....the past doesn't have to repeat itself in the same way. It makes for a boring stuck in the mud on both sides debate and closes your thinking when you become encamped in the imagined endpoint.. "Agreed. A lot of arguments like this are utterly disingenuous. So socialism is always Stalin and Pol Pot and never the welfare state and the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best criticism of laissez faire is it not only leads to, but actively encourages, the "Fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack" mentality... Now that's a better definition of the Capitalism I'm averse to
Yes but its a criticism of human nature and not capitalism. The same thing happens in every regime. Hierarchies exist always but how unfair they are can be tempered."I place the onus on "actively encourages". An ethical form of politics should at least try to mitigate the excesses of human greed. Communism's failure was in having a blind spot to the ego manic will of the individual to rise to despotic power. Capitalism doesn't just have that blind spot, it actively encourages it. But on the plus side it has devised a system that's in such a state of malfunction that it somewhat neuters them... thank goodness. Think Trump. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real axis of difference imo is between slow/no change pragmatism and revolutionary/big change idealism and between nationalism and internationalism " You are right - it's the token BS (like this 1% rhetoric) that leads to people to thinking that radical change is a good thing that scares me ...same with nationalism and the protectionist thinking that small minded people are being herded into in the USA. Look at Brexit....radical upset without a plan. Even if it's a good idea the implementation couldn't possibly be worse and the ripples caused by a big mismanaged change only hurt the marginalised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best criticism of laissez faire is it not only leads to, but actively encourages, the "Fuck everyone else, I'm alright Jack" mentality... Now that's a better definition of the Capitalism I'm averse to
Yes but its a criticism of human nature and not capitalism. The same thing happens in every regime. Hierarchies exist always but how unfair they are can be tempered.
I place the onus on "actively encourages". An ethical form of politics should at least try to mitigate the excesses of human greed. Communism's failure was in having a blind spot to the ego manic will of the individual to rise to despotic power. Capitalism doesn't just have that blind spot, it actively encourages it. But on the plus side it has devised a system that's in such a state of malfunction that it somewhat neuters them... thank goodness. Think Trump."You are over extending. Look at all the money making entities out there...you are only seeing the most obviously greedy and huge and ignoring all the businesses making an honest living and adding to society. If you want a fair system you need a benevolent and capable leader and solid workable long range plans and not a democracy that encourages the shiftiest characters to the top of a popularity/influence game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day ." Lets stop talking about Mr. T then???? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day ." And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. " The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land. "Are people becoming more extreme in their views? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a political thread? It feels political. I always try to read these threads to learn something but get lost along the way.. There's always a snarky undertone too No, it's economics. I promise there's no catch to the question. Ok.... I still don't understand it though
Do you think it is essential people have the right to own private property?
If so, does anyone else have the right to force them to use their private property in a way that is considered broadly beneficial to society?
I doubt she's a Marxist many of us own property . .
Look I don't expect Marxists to not own property in a system that encourages it, just to prove a point.
But you could say that you think all of us should give our private property to the state for communal use.
I don't think that's a good idea but it's certainly fairer if everyone or nobody does it. .
You seem to forget that all these complete egg heads are free to do everything there bitching about, they could hand over all their money and property to the state today! I mean even the fiver they spend on here would find water for Afghans for a month but no.
The truth is they don't have a single virtue in they're entire body and because of this they type utter virtue signalling crap all day while living off benefits (paid for by us tax payers) while maintaing it's "the rich that are scabbing off society".
Get off here all day every day and get a fucking job you bunch of work shy Marxists!. "I wasn't aware there was a stipend for Marxism. I'm off to quit my job, join the SWP and wait for the £££ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?"The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?
The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable .
"That doesn't sound great - how do we stop that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?
The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable .
That doesn't sound great - how do we stop that?"It's just teething problems of a more liberal society.There is nothing to stop as far as I can see.What do you want to stop ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m not a fan of capitalist politics, but in its purest form, capitalism is simple real life, and older than politics by a long time. Ever since one man killed a hog and swapped a part of it with another man for some of the vegetables he was growing. It’s completely natural for humans to trade and barter with each other, that is capitalism." You seem to be ignoring the hundreds (or thousands in some cases) of years of feudalism.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?
The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable .
That doesn't sound great - how do we stop that?
It's just teething problems of a more liberal society.There is nothing to stop as far as I can see.What do you want to stop ?
"Now I think you are trolling. Irreconcilable ideological differences never create harmony. How do you know it will become more liberal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?
The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable .
That doesn't sound great - how do we stop that?
It's just teething problems of a more liberal society.There is nothing to stop as far as I can see.What do you want to stop ?
Now I think you are trolling. Irreconcilable ideological differences never create harmony.
How do you know it will become more liberal?"The liberals of the past seem like conservatives of today . History shows its the general direction for humanity .liberals are progressive ,they are futurists . Conservatives fight to preserve the status quo ,they conserve . There's only one direction we are going and that's the future those that want to recreate the past or " Go back to the old days" have a conservative view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The liberals of the past seem like conservatives of today . History shows its the general direction for humanity .liberals are progressive ,they are futurists . Conservatives fight to preserve the status quo ,they conserve . There's only one direction we are going and that's the future those that want to recreate the past or " Go back to the old days" have a conservative view. " very nicely put! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?
The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable .
That doesn't sound great - how do we stop that?
It's just teething problems of a more liberal society.There is nothing to stop as far as I can see.What do you want to stop ?
Now I think you are trolling. Irreconcilable ideological differences never create harmony.
How do you know it will become more liberal?The liberals of the past seem like conservatives of today .
History shows its the general direction for humanity .liberals are progressive ,they are futurists . Conservatives fight to preserve the status quo ,they conserve .
There's only one direction we are going and that's the future those that want to recreate the past or " Go back to the old days" have a conservative view.
"History shows..."not always". Look at Iran | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no middle ground left in politics.Populism and the cult of celebrity as can be seen with trump is the order of the day . And why is that? To me, the populace on average are fundamentally terrible at making decisions as they don't have the knowledge and are actively misled and confused by the media incessantly from every angle. We get the politicians we deserve. The middle ground stands for nothing ,both left and right want change. A greater chasm is opening up between parties .In the past the middle ground was fought over now it's loser land.
Are people becoming more extreme in their views?
The more liberal a society becomes the further the right shifts to the right and then of course the left goes further to the left and the differences become irreconcilable .
That doesn't sound great - how do we stop that?
It's just teething problems of a more liberal society.There is nothing to stop as far as I can see.What do you want to stop ?
Now I think you are trolling. Irreconcilable ideological differences never create harmony.
How do you know it will become more liberal?The liberals of the past seem like conservatives of today .
History shows its the general direction for humanity .liberals are progressive ,they are futurists . Conservatives fight to preserve the status quo ,they conserve .
There's only one direction we are going and that's the future those that want to recreate the past or " Go back to the old days" have a conservative view.
History shows..."not always".
Look at Iran "I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. " But let's not give up hope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" History shows..."not always". Look at Iran " Not exactly the best example to choose, seeing as they had a democratically elected leader that we decided to overthrow so that BP could get theirs... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" History shows..."not always". Look at Iran Not exactly the best example to choose, seeing as they had a democratically elected leader that we decided to overthrow so that BP could get theirs..." Any example that disproves a so called inevitable conculsion is worth noting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say "progress" most certainly isn't an assured thing. Indeed, I find many parallels between today and the fall of the roman empire... the barbarians at the door, while the wooly intellectuals are lost up their own arse. I'm also unsure if we should normalise liberalism as that thing we're all inevitably heading towards. If China continues to be a success we may find socialist capitalism more of the norm in the future " Very well put. When the Roman Empire collapsed it was what, 1,000 - 1,300 years before living standards surpassed what was achieved? Since the left are determined to drag everyone down to the same shitty standard, there's a risk of history repeating itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope " We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" History shows..."not always". Look at Iran Not exactly the best example to choose, seeing as they had a democratically elected leader that we decided to overthrow so that BP could get theirs... Any example that disproves a so called inevitable conculsion is worth noting. " Except it doesn't really disprove it, seeing as we'd never know what would have happened if we hadn't interfered in Iran. Left to its own devices, chances are it would have continued along a progressive path, with high levels of academic attainment and education throughout the population, significant engagement of women in the workforce - to all intents and purposes it would probably have been akin to any Western democracy. But it wouldn't give BP what they wanted, so we overthrew the government and fucked the country in the arse. Not exactly a solid case to be drawing any conclusions from... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say "progress" most certainly isn't an assured thing. Indeed, I find many parallels between today and the fall of the roman empire... the barbarians at the door, while the wooly intellectuals are lost up their own arse. I'm also unsure if we should normalise liberalism as that thing we're all inevitably heading towards. If China continues to be a success we may find socialist capitalism more of the norm in the future " I am not opposed to the Chinese model of socialist capitalism it's progressive and anything that lifts billions out of poverty can't be all that bad it's further left than anything we've seen in the UK though so I doubt the neo cons would approve . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say "progress" most certainly isn't an assured thing. Indeed, I find many parallels between today and the fall of the roman empire... the barbarians at the door, while the wooly intellectuals are lost up their own arse. I'm also unsure if we should normalise liberalism as that thing we're all inevitably heading towards. If China continues to be a success we may find socialist capitalism more of the norm in the future Very well put. When the Roman Empire collapsed it was what, 1,000 - 1,300 years before living standards surpassed what was achieved? Since the left are determined to drag everyone down to the same shitty standard, there's a risk of history repeating itself. " 1000-1300 years *in Europe* Meanwhile in the Middle East the Islamic Golden Age was happening, where they progressed humanity massively and sowed the seeds for the later European Renaissance... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything ." The church positions were appointed by the King | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say "progress" most certainly isn't an assured thing. Indeed, I find many parallels between today and the fall of the roman empire... the barbarians at the door, while the wooly intellectuals are lost up their own arse. I'm also unsure if we should normalise liberalism as that thing we're all inevitably heading towards. If China continues to be a success we may find socialist capitalism more of the norm in the future Very well put. When the Roman Empire collapsed it was what, 1,000 - 1,300 years before living standards surpassed what was achieved? Since the left are determined to drag everyone down to the same shitty standard, there's a risk of history repeating itself. 1000-1300 years *in Europe* Meanwhile in the Middle East the Islamic Golden Age was happening, where they progressed humanity massively and sowed the seeds for the later European Renaissance..." Don't forget China if that's how we're playing this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say "progress" most certainly isn't an assured thing. Indeed, I find many parallels between today and the fall of the roman empire... the barbarians at the door, while the wooly intellectuals are lost up their own arse. I'm also unsure if we should normalise liberalism as that thing we're all inevitably heading towards. If China continues to be a success we may find socialist capitalism more of the norm in the future I am not opposed to the Chinese model of socialist capitalism it's progressive and anything that lifts billions out of poverty can't be all that bad it's further left than anything we've seen in the UK though so I doubt the neo cons would approve ." So you approve of systems that lift billions out of poverty... like capitalism. Everything that lifted the 400m chinese out of poverty were free market reforms from deng Xiaoping. Everything that put them in poverty were marxist bullshit from mao. The default position of China is rich. It's got farm land that is more than double as productive as the best European land. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say "progress" most certainly isn't an assured thing. Indeed, I find many parallels between today and the fall of the roman empire... the barbarians at the door, while the wooly intellectuals are lost up their own arse. I'm also unsure if we should normalise liberalism as that thing we're all inevitably heading towards. If China continues to be a success we may find socialist capitalism more of the norm in the future Very well put. When the Roman Empire collapsed it was what, 1,000 - 1,300 years before living standards surpassed what was achieved? Since the left are determined to drag everyone down to the same shitty standard, there's a risk of history repeating itself. 1000-1300 years *in Europe* Meanwhile in the Middle East the Islamic Golden Age was happening, where they progressed humanity massively and sowed the seeds for the later European Renaissance... Don't forget China if that's how we're playing this " At that time, they weren't really a patch on what was going on in the Middle East. Too busy dealing with Genghis & Sons. Though arguably once Kublai started up the Yuan dynasty and the hordes later broke through into the Middle East, the sharing of that knowledge across the Mongol Empire is probably largely responsible for the Renaissance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King "I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not "Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list . "When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list .
When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options. "Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list .
When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options.
Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope "You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list .
When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options.
Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope
You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference. "Who would be the best custodians of the education system ? Buisness or the church of some separate entity.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list .
When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options.
Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope
You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference.
Who would be the best custodians of the education system ? Buisness or the church of some separate entity.?"What do you mean by custodians? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list .
When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options.
Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope
You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference.
Who would be the best custodians of the education system ? Buisness or the church of some separate entity.?
What do you mean by custodians? "Those responsible for the education of the nation .If politicians aren't held responsible then who .? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I suppose you could of used Afghanistan also but these places have a very difficult history .We ran Iran for a long time placed a puppet monarch on the throne and then bailed on him years later .I can't really see Britain having a revolution and becoming a theocracy anytime soon. But let's not give up hope We tried it already it was called the dark ages when the church ran everything . The church positions were appointed by the King
I'm assuming you're joking that you'd like to see Britain become a theocracy... but now I'm worried you're not
Religon is strong in this one.I wouldn't be surprised if a benevolent theocracy once the messiah returns ,is on brokens Christmas list .
When democracy throws you Corbyn or May and Clinton or Trump then it's time to consider other options.
Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope
You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference.
Who would be the best custodians of the education system ? Buisness or the church of some separate entity.?
What do you mean by custodians?
Those responsible for the education of the nation .If politicians aren't held responsible then who .?"Are you under the impression that the education system would die without some national curriculum? National curriculum is part of the problem, not the solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope
You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference.
Who would be the best custodians of the education system ? Buisness or the church of some separate entity.?
What do you mean by custodians?
Those responsible for the education of the nation .If politicians aren't held responsible then who .?
Are you under the impression that the education system would die without some national curriculum?
National curriculum is part of the problem, not the solution. "There's also a core misunderstanding about what education is for. To most it's to help train people up for the work place. But actually it's at the root of our civilizations health. For making sure the democratic voice makes good choices, for pursuing enlightened progress, and for routing out ignorant misconceptions and prejudices. Without these everything could easily fall apart. The national curriculum appears to be utterly blind to these issues in its quest to make more meat for the capitalist grinder (thought I'd add that last bit for broken ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Chomsky said the quality of a democracy is only as good as the quality of its education system. I think it's pretty obvious he was right. Perhaps we could try improving that before we think about ceding power to the pope
You're talking a lot of sense today, has your account been hacked? The only thing that would fix the education system would be to seperate it from political interference.
Who would be the best custodians of the education system ? Buisness or the church of some separate entity.?
What do you mean by custodians?
Those responsible for the education of the nation .If politicians aren't held responsible then who .?
Are you under the impression that the education system would die without some national curriculum?
National curriculum is part of the problem, not the solution.
There's also a core misunderstanding about what education is for. To most it's to help train people up for the work place. But actually it's at the root of our civilizations health. For making sure the democratic voice makes good choices, for pursuing enlightened progress, and for routing out ignorant misconceptions and prejudices. Without these everything could easily fall apart. The national curriculum appears to be utterly blind to these issues in its quest to make more meat for the capitalist grinder (thought I'd add that last bit for broken ) "The state education system exists to be a playground for the education minister to bolster their CV and make a bid for prime minister. It has a secondary purpose of employing female trade union members. The population tolerate this because to them, it's a national babysitting service. Any attempt to educate the kids is an accident that happens after these higher goals have been satisfied. Its evil and should be abolished. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. " Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade " Positive psychology has much to say on virtue which you can translate as excellence . Excellence in life leads to happiness.No god required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade Positive psychology has much to say on virtue which you can translate as excellence . Excellence in life leads to happiness.No god required. "Happiness is a false God. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade " Or indeed Marxist. Marx was all about people developing themselves to the fullest and that capitalism thwarted that by forcing everyone to have one particular niche within the market place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade Positive psychology has much to say on virtue which you can translate as excellence . Excellence in life leads to happiness.No god required.
Happiness is a false God. "I agree. There's no one as happy as those who falsely believe that God watches over them and looks after them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade Positive psychology has much to say on virtue which you can translate as excellence . Excellence in life leads to happiness.No god required.
Happiness is a false God. "Lets be honest the pursuit of happiness is high on the list for every Human .Are you not in pursuit of it here . Positive psychology describes three kinds of happiness: 1) pleasure and gratification, 2) embodiment of strengths and virtues and 3) meaning and purpose. Its a but like when Bill an Ted asked us to be excellent to each other and be excellent in your day to day life and in your work life and you will find happiness . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade Or indeed Marxist. Marx was all about people developing themselves to the fullest and that capitalism thwarted that by forcing everyone to have one particular niche within the market place. " That worked out well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Plato has an interesting take on education .Its very relevant to today and the inequality in the education system . I'm sure you guys know this already. Plato regards education as a means to achieve justice, both individual justice and social justice. According to Plato, individual justice can be obtained when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. In this sense, justice means excellence. For the Greeks and Plato, excellence is virtue. Plato believes that all people can easily exist in harmony when society gives them equal educational opportunity from an early age to compete fairly with each other. Without equal educational opportunity, an unjust society appears since the political system is run by unqualified people; timocracy, oligarchy, defective democracy, or tyranny will result. Woah, did you just say virtue? Starting to sound a bit Catholic there comrade Positive psychology has much to say on virtue which you can translate as excellence . Excellence in life leads to happiness.No god required.
Happiness is a false God.
Lets be honest the pursuit of happiness is high on the list for every Human .Are you not in pursuit of it here .
Positive psychology describes three kinds of happiness: 1) pleasure and gratification, 2) embodiment of strengths and virtues and 3) meaning and purpose.
Its a but like when Bill an Ted asked us to be excellent to each other and be excellent in your day to day life and in your work life and you will find happiness .
"For most of human history, happiness was not even a goal. It was an after thought to something that better resembles 'achievement'. I am certainly not here looking for anything that will bring me 'happiness', just a bit of lowly gratification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
