It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us
Discussion
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Pure and simple Marxism.So, this is relevant once again...
chris watton said:
I note that the latest headline on WUWT could be easily changed for topics like this:
Are [negative] Opinions onClimate Change tax and capitalism Related to Dependency on Government Money?
It seems that those who despise large companies (but, as always, except Apple for some reason...) and their profits usually work in the public sector, where said company's (or any other private company of any size) contribute to their earnings via their net contributions!
That's a very sweeping judgemental statement, I would assume you must have the vital statistical evidence to back your POV? Or is it, as seems more likely, a general observation based upon a few news headlines?Are [negative] Opinions on
It seems that those who despise large companies (but, as always, except Apple for some reason...) and their profits usually work in the public sector, where said company's (or any other private company of any size) contribute to their earnings via their net contributions!
chris watton said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Pure and simple Marxism.So, this is relevant once again...
powerstroke said:
crankedup said:
What no denial on the other possibilities;) Personally I will stick with the small cafe's, so much a relaxing convivial atmosphere to be enjoyed, 'better brew to with no Q' Starbucks do it well for the cattle-market trade, quick in and fast out, poor s*ds.
Personally I'm not keen on Starbucks but must go asap !coffee might be over priced and average but the warm glow of thinking leftys might be going puce and becomingUpset ..... Priceless
chris watton said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Pure and simple Marxism.So, this is relevant once again...
Lived in ex communist country's what?
I may have used a Marx quote, to illustrate a point but that doesn't make me Stalin / Mao or even Che Guevara.
Someone advocated Ayne Rand as explaining why capitalism is "the answer" when she was as [-]mental[/] extreme as an communist.
chris watton said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Pure and simple Marxism.So, this is relevant once again...
The irony in crankedup's post is off the scale.
Capitalism is and always has worked well to improve our quality of life, political interference on the other hand has frequently been disastrous with Labour in the 70s taking the UK cap in hand to the IMF, Labour's recent national trainwreck with Liam Byrne telling everyone "there's no money left" and with Clinton's egalitarian delusion forcing mortage lenders to give loans to people who had no hope of sustaining the repayments.
The reason why western democracies are nearly bust, or already there and living off borrowed time and borrowed money, boils down to that vague and open-ended utopian Marxist statement, which successive politicians have tried to achieve to varying degrees through welfare largesse. It's unworkable and unaffordable.
There is a reasonable position, which we're not close to as yet.
To each person dealt a carp hand in life who genuinely cannot support themselves, money from taxation should provide a comfortable quality of life.
To others in need of support to get through a rough patch, money from taxation should provide a temporary basic safety net.
Beyond that, nothing is needed.
Getting to such a point is going to be extremely difficult given the historical backdrop of hardworking class taxpayers' money being spunked up the welfare wall. When all the one-off loans to banks are paid back, the welfare budget will still be over £200bn each year compared to the total loans of £120bn.
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
crankedup said:
turbobloke said:
Hackney said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Pure and simple Marxism.So, this is relevant once again...
The irony in crankedup's post is off the scale.
Capitalism is and always has worked well to improve our quality of life, political interference on the other hand has frequently been disastrous with Labour in the 70s taking the UK cap in hand to the IMF, Labour's recent national trainwreck with Liam Byrne telling everyone "there's no money left" and with Clinton's egalitarian delusion forcing mortage lenders to give loans to people who had no hope of sustaining the repayments.
The reason why western democracies are nearly bust, or already there and living off borrowed time and borrowed money, boils down to that vague and open-ended utopian Marxist statement, which successive politicians have tried to achieve to varying degrees through welfare largesse. It's unworkable and unaffordable.
There is a reasonable position, which we're not close to as yet.
To each person dealt a carp hand in life who genuinely cannot support themselves, money from taxation should provide a comfortable quality of life.
To others in need of support to get through a rough patch, money from taxation should provide a temporary basic safety net.
Beyond that, nothing is needed.
Getting to such a point is going to be extremely difficult given the historical backdrop of hardworking class taxpayers' money being spunked up the welfare wall. When all the one-off loans to banks are paid back, the welfare budget will still be over £200bn each year compared to the total loans of £120bn.
I agree.Some of us live our lives well within our means, pay our taxes and keep our noses clean - yet for some, this still isn't enough. they want me to contribute even more because other's cannot stop spending what they do not have.
It's like the obese blaming sugar for their size, when cutting down and exercising is all that is needed - a mad, crazy world where hardly anyone takes personal responsibility for their lives be it personal finances or health. I find that, on the whole, people like this like Labour, lib dems and a huge state to tell then what to do and think - and keep taking the government (read taxpayers) coin - and always blame and try to bite the proverbial hand that feeds them.
As I get older, this becomes ever more apparent.
ASAIAC, the likes of crankedup et all deserve ridicule.
graphene said:
Capitalism doesn't make the laws and regulation, or set the foreign policy, or tell the banks when to print more money to support the spending beyond means of governments who are, almost, out of control.
Corporations and industry lobby for laws and (de)regulation all the time, most major sectors work closely with government to help advise policy toward aiding or capitalist system.Many working in major industries are from government.
It could be argued, (especially in the US), that the power of the US arms industry by some degree does dictate certain aspects of foreign policy to spending on and profitability of their industry up.
The bank of england, not 'the banks' are the only ones who can print money, QE was part and parcel of the ongoing help for the banks, and they took it to try and get back to profitability.
It's all tied together and not as easy as saying Government should stay out of business, or business out of government.
We need as much transparency & information on both to make informed decisions instead of deciding who the bad guy are with political prejudice.
Prawnboy said:
graphene said:
Capitalism doesn't make the laws and regulation, or set the foreign policy, or tell the banks when to print more money to support the spending beyond means of governments who are, almost, out of control.
Corporations and industry lobby for laws and (de)regulation all the time, most major sectors work closely with government to help advise policy toward aiding or capitalist system.And after all that, capitalism still doesn't make laws or formulate regulations. In general capitalism improves quality of life, politicians fkup particularly those of left-ish persuasion. It's the way of things.
Prawnboy said:
Corporations and industry lobby for laws and (de)regulation all the time, most major sectors work closely with government to help advise policy toward aiding or capitalist system.
Many working in major industries are from government.
It could be argued, (especially in the US), that the power of the US arms industry by some degree does dictate certain aspects of foreign policy to spending on and profitability of their industry up.
The bank of england, not 'the banks' are the only ones who can print money, QE was part and parcel of the ongoing help for the banks, and they took it to try and get back to profitability.
It's all tied together and not as easy as saying Government should stay out of business, or business out of government.
We need as much transparency & information on both to make informed decisions instead of deciding who the bad guy are with political prejudice.
And the Bank of England is a private company.Many working in major industries are from government.
It could be argued, (especially in the US), that the power of the US arms industry by some degree does dictate certain aspects of foreign policy to spending on and profitability of their industry up.
The bank of england, not 'the banks' are the only ones who can print money, QE was part and parcel of the ongoing help for the banks, and they took it to try and get back to profitability.
It's all tied together and not as easy as saying Government should stay out of business, or business out of government.
We need as much transparency & information on both to make informed decisions instead of deciding who the bad guy are with political prejudice.
Hackney said:
Prawnboy said:
Corporations and industry lobby for laws and (de)regulation all the time, most major sectors work closely with government to help advise policy toward aiding or capitalist system.
Many working in major industries are from government.
It could be argued, (especially in the US), that the power of the US arms industry by some degree does dictate certain aspects of foreign policy to spending on and profitability of their industry up.
The bank of england, not 'the banks' are the only ones who can print money, QE was part and parcel of the ongoing help for the banks, and they took it to try and get back to profitability.
It's all tied together and not as easy as saying Government should stay out of business, or business out of government.
We need as much transparency & information on both to make informed decisions instead of deciding who the bad guy are with political prejudice.
And the Bank of England is a private company.Many working in major industries are from government.
It could be argued, (especially in the US), that the power of the US arms industry by some degree does dictate certain aspects of foreign policy to spending on and profitability of their industry up.
The bank of england, not 'the banks' are the only ones who can print money, QE was part and parcel of the ongoing help for the banks, and they took it to try and get back to profitability.
It's all tied together and not as easy as saying Government should stay out of business, or business out of government.
We need as much transparency & information on both to make informed decisions instead of deciding who the bad guy are with political prejudice.
Hackney said:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Problem with that:Define need. Define ability.
Who decides need, who decides ability?
All the problems of communism stem from these questions
Hackney said:
I may have used a Marx quote, to illustrate a point but that doesn't make me Stalin / Mao or even Che Guevara.
Someone advocated Ayne Rand as explaining why capitalism is "the answer" when she was as [-]mental[/] extreme as an communist.
No, I said that fatuous prique OJ doesn't actually understand what capitalism is, the cronyised version we have of it here (and sadly the US too) is a pale shadow of what it should be.Someone advocated Ayne Rand as explaining why capitalism is "the answer" when she was as [-]mental[/] extreme as an communist.
Followers of Marx killed approximately 94 million people, Fascist Collectivists a few less, Religious Collectivists quite a few, Feudal collectivists a fair number.
Followers of Objectivist philosophy built a few businesses and employed a few people. Who's mentally ill again?
XM5ER said:
No, I said that fatuous prique OJ doesn't actually understand what capitalism is, the cronyised version we have of it here (and sadly the US too) is a pale shadow of what it should be.
Followers of Marx killed approximately 94 million people, Fascist Collectivists a few less, Religious Collectivists quite a few, Feudal collectivists a fair number.
Followers of Objectivist philosophy built a few businesses and employed a few people. Who's mentally ill again?
You could say the same about communism....the cronyised version we've seen in the Soviet Union etc, etc. Communism would work if it wasn't for the bFollowers of Marx killed approximately 94 million people, Fascist Collectivists a few less, Religious Collectivists quite a few, Feudal collectivists a fair number.
Followers of Objectivist philosophy built a few businesses and employed a few people. Who's mentally ill again?
ds who end up at the top.To your second point, I would argue that the actions of the followers, or indeed Marx's other actions are not an argument against that quote.
That's like saying "gas chambers, death camps, annexing Poland and genocide of the Jews mean that an affordable car for the people and decent roads to run them on are bad ideas"
Hackney said:
You could say the same about communism....the cronyised version we've seen in the Soviet Union etc, etc. Communism would work if it wasn't for the bds who end up at the top.
To your second point, I would argue that the actions of the followers, or indeed Marx's other actions are not an argument against that quote.
That's like saying "gas chambers, death camps, annexing Poland and genocide of the Jews mean that an affordable car for the people and decent roads to run them on are bad ideas"
You really need to read more history and meet more people. I did, that's why I abandoned socialism many years ago.ds who end up at the top.To your second point, I would argue that the actions of the followers, or indeed Marx's other actions are not an argument against that quote.
That's like saying "gas chambers, death camps, annexing Poland and genocide of the Jews mean that an affordable car for the people and decent roads to run them on are bad ideas"
turbobloke said:
fblm said:
Hackney said:
1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.
£123bn. Theres this thing called google. You could try googling it.Also it's worth remembering that 'bailout' refers to a loan not a gift.
The banks [b]did[/] receive a bailout then? Of an only slightly less hideous amount than the article quoted? Yes?
I await with interest (both kinds) for this bailout to be repaid.
Hackney said:
I didn't google it because I wanted it to be your answer, so you couldn't argue with it.
The banks [b]did[/] receive a bailout then? Of an only slightly less hideous amount than the article quoted? Yes?
I await with interest (both kinds) for this bailout to be repaid.
It was a Labour government who decided to bail out the banks. wasn't it?The banks [b]did[/] receive a bailout then? Of an only slightly less hideous amount than the article quoted? Yes?
I await with interest (both kinds) for this bailout to be repaid.
I don't recall the population being asked, do you?
XM5ER said:
You really need to read more history and meet more people. I did, that's why I abandoned socialism many years ago.
Where did I advocate socialism? Or communism?I've simply used the same logic / argument as you.
Marx's quote is completely invalidated to you because there have been some right b
d communists.As I said, does that mean the Volkswagen was a bad idea because Hitler had it?
You said we've got some lilly livered version of capitalism which, ie an imperfect version.
The same can be said about communism. There has never been a "perfect" version because someone always lets the power corrupt them.
And thanks for the patronising comments.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff