• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

scaramanga said:
The answer, again, is simple.

Either be better than the rest and guarantee the work or get another job. If you don't like the terms offered by your employer, go get another job with terms you like.
Click to expand...

Even if that is true at the individual level (which I think it isn't totally), at the level of a nation or society the fact is that we need people doing these jobs, so no matter how hard everyone works there will always be people who finish at the bottom and have to work these jobs and in these conditions.

So with that being said, do you accept that your view here is driven by your lack of human empathy?

It would be much quicker just to agree and acknowledge that than go round in circles attempting to make other rational arguments.
 
elltrev said:
Even if that is true at the individual level (which I think it isn't totally), at the level of a nation or society the fact is that we need people doing these jobs, so no matter how hard everyone works there will always be people who finish at the bottom and have to work these jobs and in these conditions.

So with that being said, do you accept that your view here is driven by your lack of human empathy?

It would be much quicker just to agree and acknowledge that than go round in circles attempting to make other rational arguments.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've ever denied that - empathy is a complete waste of time.

As long as every has the opportunity to do better then I'm happy. Those who take that opportunity least well will always be less well off. Those who make the most of those chances will, on the whole, do better out of life.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think I've ever denied that - empathy is a complete waste of time.

As long as every has the opportunity to do better then I'm happy. Those who take that opportunity least well will always be less well off. Those who make the most of those chances will, on the whole, do better out of life.
Click to expand...

No you haven't, which is fair enough - that's why I wanted to confirm it here, to see the root of disagreement between you and others (incl. myself) rather than endlessly going round in circles.

A second question though - do you believe that everyone has the same opportunity in life? And if not, do you think something should be done to try and increase the opportunity of those who start with less? And if so, what thing and who should it be done by?
 
SpurMeUp said:
It's also has an uncanny resemblance to what Karl Marx envisioned. A world where workers would go fishing half the time, a more advanced evolution of capitalism.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

Sort of. Post-capitalism/post-industrialism is inevitable, and coming soon. Marx maybe imagined efficiencies in the organisation of labour, but I'm not sure the extent of automation that is coming to largely put an end to work.

I thought Communism was always about state ownership of the means production, rather than any concept of actually reducing production and cutting work demand?

I think the problems with Communism compared to de-growth are:
- State ownership generally doesn't work. Things get bloated, complacent and inefficient. Competition is necessary, but I don't think that needs to be driven by profit. I always think the university sector is a good example of what might work for transport and amenities - competing independent charities
- People can't be equal. To function, human society needs to reward ability and hard work, and punish laziness. That's why de-growth proposes a universal basic income + a performance related top-up
 
scaramanga said:
The market already deals with that issue, it's known as supply and demand. I can give you the basics when I have a bit more time if you like.
Click to expand...

Well demand is clearly outstripping supply. Watch all hell breaks loose as former undeveloped countries begin to demand their share of the economic pie. For example people in Asia who previously were content to eat rice and vegetables, now want meat too and that puts added strain on land supply and water. Soylent Green anyone?
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
When science develops efficient methods to harvest that sun then I'll be with you on that one. What about other finite resources Scara, fresh water, arable land?
Click to expand...

There's harvesting the sun that we are crap at, and then there's storing the energy (batteries) that we are even worse at
 
Gutter Boy said:
Sort of. Post-capitalism/post-industrialism is inevitable, and coming soon. Marx maybe imagined efficiencies in the organisation of labour, but I'm not sure the extent of automation that is coming to largely put an end to work.

I thought Communism was always about state ownership of the means production, rather than any concept of actually reducing production and cutting work demand?

I think the problems with Communism compared to de-growth are:
- State ownership generally doesn't work. Things get bloated, complacent and inefficient. Competition is necessary, but I don't think that needs to be driven by profit. I always think the university sector is a good example of what might work for transport and amenities - competing independent charities
- People can't be equal. To function, human society needs to reward ability and hard work, and punish laziness. That's why de-growth proposes a universal basic income + a performance related top-up
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Bureaucracies can't run an economy. They fail almost every time. In that regard I'm quite right wing, free enterprise makes things efficient, and improves service. To be honest, even Universities and education retain lots of state like inefficiency: jobs for life, lack of innovation etc. The biggest failing of Communism was a state running the economy. Consumers would find one line of jeans available in shops etc. An economy needs free enterprise. Incidentally, Marx's vision of communism was a way off what Communism actually became. Not least, he thought it would be an evolution of advanced capitalism, not applied to feudal largely undeveloped economies.

All research suggests that people are happier when there are less disparities however. At the moment, the chasm between the rich and poor is undermining. It's not easily solved. Labour haven't a clue on how to - taxing is not the answer, a longer term re-emphasis of societal bonds over wealth may be but that's a separate thing.

The problem I have with a basic income and top-up is it sounds like a state run bureaucracy, fought with impossibilities. How would it work? Would companies oversee it, and how?
 
SpurMeUp said:
Couldn't agree more. Bureaucracies can't run an economy. They fail almost every time. In that regard I'm quite right wing, free enterprise makes things efficient, and improves service. To be honest, even Universities and education retain lots of state like inefficiency: jobs for life, lack of innovation etc. The biggest failing of Communism was a state running the economy. Consumers would find one line of jeans available in shops etc. An economy needs free enterprise. Incidentally, Marx's vision of communism was a way off what Communism actually became. Not least, he thought it would be an evolution of advanced capitalism, not applied to feudal largely undeveloped economies.

All research suggests that people are happier when there are less disparities however. At the moment, the chasm between the rich and poor is undermining. It's not easily solved. Labour haven't a clue on how to - taxing is not the answer, a longer term re-emphasis of societal bonds over wealth may be but that's a separate thing.

The problem I have with a basic income and top-up is it sounds like a state run bureaucracy, fought with impossibilities. How would it work? Would companies oversee it, and how?
Click to expand...

The idea would be that every person say gets £15-20k (the real figures aren't important) a year state salary from the proceeds of the automated industries. Then anything they earn from their activities in their permitted 28 hours work, they keep.

So those more in demand/who do their full 28 hours can buy nicer houses/cars/holidays, but everyone is freed to follow their vacations and become more socially engaged, knowing basic housing, food and amenities are always already covered.

In terms of bureaucracy to manage it - everyone gets the same amount (maybe half for under 16s) - a monthly bank deposit (essentially a standing order to the electoral roll). There's no means testing, and all other benefits (job seekers, housing, pensions, disability etc.) are got rid of. So it should be much simpler than present. In fact, in the spirit of post-industrialisation, it could be fully automated.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The idea would be that every person say gets £15-20k (the real figures aren't important) a year state salary from the proceeds of the automated industries. Then anything they earn from their activities in their permitted 28 hours work, they keep.

So those more in demand/who do their full 28 hours can buy nicer houses/cars/holidays, but everyone is freed to follow their vacations and become more socially engaged, knowing basic housing, food and amenities are always already covered.

In terms of bureaucracy to manage it - everyone gets the same amount (maybe half for under 16s) - a monthly bank deposit (essentially a standing order to the electoral roll). There's no means testing, and all other benefits (job seekers, housing, pensions, disability etc.) are got rid of. So it should be much simpler than present. In fact, in the spirit of post-industrialisation, it could be fully automated.
Click to expand...
So when expendable income jumps and so does demand, what happens to prices?
 
All you need to know about Labour's manifesto, SNP are claiming it's a copy of their policies.
Yes the same policies that have given Scotland something like a £5 billion a year deficit and billions in debt.
 
I've always maintained that the Tories have contempt for democratic principles and the British people in particular and May's gutless response to the offer of televised debates demonstrates this. She claims that her government have a magnificent story to tell to the British people, so why doesn't she take the opportunity to shout it from the roof top during the debate? We all know the answer to that. May wants to subvert democracy, by hiding from the accountability that the scrutiny of the debates would provide for her opponents. How weak and unconvincing was her cop out explanation? "I'm a constituency based politician and I want to meet members of the public face to face." Is she kidding? Does she think that as prime minister she has no moral obligation to face up to the nation as a whole? All this evasion begs the question, what do May and her Merry Band of Incompetent Tories have to hide?
 
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore said:
When science develops efficient methods to harvest that sun then I'll be with you on that one. What about other finite resources Scara, fresh water, arable land?
Click to expand...

Gutter Boy said:
There's harvesting the sun that we are crap at, and then there's storing the energy (batteries) that we are even worse at
Click to expand...
When the need becomes great enough then so will the demand. If the value of a technological improvement is great enough then it will happen - it always does

As for land, there's no the shortage people would have you believe, they just need to stop being departed about GM food.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
I've always maintained that the Tories have contempt for democratic principles and the British people in particular and May's gutless response to the offer of televised debates demonstrates this. She claims that her government have a magnificent story to tell to the British people, so why doesn't she take the opportunity to shout it from the roof top during the debate? We all know the answer to that. May wants to subvert democracy, by hiding from the accountability that the scrutiny of the debates would provide for her opponents. How weak and unconvincing was her cop out explanation? "I'm a constituency based politician and I want to meet members of the public face to face." Is she kidding? Does she think that as prime minister she has no moral obligation to face up to the nation as a whole? All this evasion begs the question, what do May and her Merry Band of Incompetent Tories have to hide?
Click to expand...
Why would anyone about to walk an election take part in a debate that draws far too much attention to minority parties?

I've got no love for May, but if she's stupid enough to take part in a debate from her position then she's far too stupid to run the country.
 
scaramanga said:
Why would anyone about to walk an election take part in a debate that draws far too much attention to minority parties?

I've got no love for May, but if she's stupid enough to take part in a debate from her position then she's far too stupid to run the country.
Click to expand...
yep think she saw how clegg was able to promise the world and go up in the polls, she is right to not want to do it because of the risk


also no offence to any yanks on here but they seem a bit American
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back