Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

Always nice to hear.

So why are they legendary? Food or frolics?

The quality of the first round of food, it's Michelin star food on a barbeque (in my eyes).

After that the quality depends very much on whether I still give enough of a fudge to watch it cook or if something else has grabbed my attention. Usually that something else is supposedly being far too competitive at a game of garden football/cricket. Apparently "If 7 year old girls can't take a sliding tackle, they shouldn't be on the pitch" is an unacceptable attitude to this kind of event.

 

[scaramanga]

You know as well as I do that if there was a real desire for completely free market economics a party would be pushing this agenda and it would be the major policy point.

Markets are not free as the consumers have voted successive governments who do not believe in this philosophy.

Not everyone's views are homogenous in that manner.

Most people want to be able to choose what they want (whether that's cheaper food or chickens that get a cuddle). They shouldn't be able to tell others what to have - the only answer to both is to remove regulation and let the markets decide.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Not everyone's views are homogenous in that manner.

Most people want to be able to choose what they want (whether that's cheaper food or chickens that get a cuddle). They shouldn't be able to tell others what to have - the only answer to both is to remove regulation and let the markets decide.

Most people don't want to have to research food safety, conditions etc. before going to the supermarket. Don't want to have to check what is in their food is what they are told, the answer they have come up with is delegating that to regulators.

 

[DTA]

They're fudging chickens.

When everyone in the world is fed, I'll start giving some fudges about chickens.

The fact that you don't give a fudge about chickens has nothing to do with world hunger.

How the powerful treat the weak is an example of how evolved we are. And you have go include animals in that.

Just because we can doesn't mean that we should.

 

[scaramanga]

Most people don't want to have to research food safety, conditions etc. before going to the supermarket. Don't want to have to check what is in their food is what they are told, the answer they have come up with is delegating that to regulators.

I've got no issue with there being a body that grades the happiness of a chicken, the safeness (ugliness) of a car or the tree hugginess of a vacuum cleaner - information is key to a fair market.

I just think that, given that information, people should be able to choose between the expensive EU options, the ones in the middle, or the "fudge it, it's cheap" end of the market. There are people who want all of them.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I've got no issue with there being a body that grades the happiness of a chicken, the safeness (ugliness) of a car or the tree hugginess of a vacuum cleaner - information is key to a fair market.

I just think that, given that information, people should be able to choose between the expensive EU options, the ones in the middle, or the "fudge it, it's cheap" end of the market. There are people who want all of them.

I know you think this and believe that the market knows best, most other people don't.

 

[scaramanga]

I know you think this and believe that the market knows best, most other people don't.

Whether they do or not, why not let them choose what they want. If society cares enough about that kind of regulation those that don't adhere will have no market to sell to.

 

[scaramanga]

The fact that you don't give a fudge about chickens has nothing to do with world hunger.

How the powerful treat the weak is an example of how evolved we are. And you have go include animals in that.

Just because we can doesn't mean that we should.

There are far more important things to think about than the happiness of food. If we get that far down the list of brick to care about, then we'll be doing pretty well as a society.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Whether they do or not, why not let them choose what they want. If society cares enough about that kind of regulation those that don't adhere will have no market to sell to.

Most people do not subscribe to your view on the free market, they have made their choice in the ballet box.

 

[scaramanga]

Most people do not subscribe to your view on the free market, they have made their choice in the ballet box.

Tied in with decisions about who their dad voted for, or who their trade union rep tells them is evil, etc.

The electorate are (on the whole) thick as pigbrick. It's a credit to those of us who aren't that we still think they should have a vote.

 

[glasgowspur]

You didn't answer my question. You answered your own, but whatever. I'm done with this.

Really not trying to be offensive, and sorry if thats how any of my posts to you came over. but the caveat to leave out the EU kind of makes it really difficult. You simply can't.
The SNP are as split on EU as the Tories.
Despite what GB says the EU don't want Scotland, or I suspect any of those others (except maybe NI/ United Ireland).
We need trade deals with the EU, we need FOM. Without any of those talking of independence is pointless.
I didn't not vote for independence because I'm against it, I voted against it because after campaigning for it for decades the SNP had no viable plan for after it.
Show me a plan where there's a structure, your figures add up, and there is at least a semblance of forward planning and I'll consider voting for it.
The SNP had none of those things.

Add this bit because I forgot.
Most of the first reply was addressed to you, not aimed at you Rorschach, I was trying to explain my exasperation.

 

[r-u-s-x]

The belief that the invisible hand knows best is not one everyone agrees with. If the starting point for most people is that the market does not represent what people want then the rest of your argument is not relevant.

It is not accepted fact or even really mainstream theory.

What is evident is there is no successful party who are pushing this viewpoint.

See above regarding Amazon, are you telling me that the only way I express my opinion is through where I spend, well no thanks and there are multitudes of other factors for other people.

 

[DTA]

There are far more important things to think about than the happiness of food. If we get that far down the list of brick to care about, then we'll be doing pretty well as a society.

Animals are not JUST food. And we absolutely need to think of their happiness and well being.

 

[Robspur12]

I think consumers should be able to choose, rather than have a diktat from an unelected body tell them what to choose.

I'm fairly sure there are some people who would rather buy cheaper, battery farmed eggs. Going outside the example of food, I'd happily buy a car that didn't pass many of the silly EU safety standards if it meant a better looking car. It would also be nice to choose between a clean floor and a low energy bill.

Sorry for picking up this discussion half way through but you can still buy battery farmed eggs. The EU haven't outlawed the practice nor have they affected the choice of foods to a large extent, that has been marke led. You can still buy cheap, crap food if you wish, mostly their controls are on unsafe food. But it is also desirable to many consumers to also have decent standards of animal welfare as there should be in civilised countries.

 

[scaramanga]

Sorry for picking up this discussion half way through but you can still buy battery farmed eggs. The EU haven't outlawed the practice nor have they affected the choice of foods to a large extent, that has been marke led. You can still buy cheap, crap food if you wish, mostly their controls are on unsafe food. But it is also desirable to many consumers to also have decent standards of animal welfare as there should be in civilised countries.

It's incredible rare, against EU rules and on its way out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC

 

[scaramanga]

Animals are not JUST food. And we absolutely need to think of their happiness and well being.

Why?

What if it wasn't about efficiency and cost? What if kicking a cow every day made steak taste really, really good? Wouldn't that be worth it? I'd happily eat kicked cow.

 

[scaramanga]

The belief that the invisible hand knows best is not one everyone agrees with. If the starting point for most people is that the market does not represent what people want then the rest of your argument is not relevant.

It is not accepted fact or even really mainstream theory.

What is evident is there is no successful party who are pushing this viewpoint.

See above regarding Amazon, are you telling me that the only way I express my opinion is through where I spend, well no thanks and there are multitudes of other factors for other people.

I'd expect your purchasing habits to follow your moral beliefs, yes. Otherwise I would doubt the importance with which you hold such beliefs - nothing wrong with that, we all do it. But if people really cared enough and if people purchased in line with their morals, Amazon wouldn't be able to behave the way they do.

I don't buy shares in businesses with unionised work forces. I try to encourage other shareholders to do the same - over time that pressure might build into removing unions from the workforce. If it doesn't, I at least get to have the (albeit small) warm feeling of acting in accordance with my beliefs.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I'd expect your purchasing habits to follow your moral beliefs, yes. Otherwise I would doubt the importance with which you hold such beliefs - nothing wrong with that, we all do it. But if people really cared enough and if people purchased in line with their morals, Amazon wouldn't be able to behave the way they do.

I don't buy shares in businesses with unionised work forces. I try to encourage other shareholders to do the same - over time that pressure might build into removing unions from the workforce. If it doesn't, I at least get to have the (albeit small) warm feeling of acting in accordance with my beliefs.

yes this is what you do - it is not what everyone does.

If people really wanted a free market they would vote with their morals, this would be a major policy point in any Party overriding most others.

You cant just repeat your dogma and make it fact.

tell me again about most people thinking that the market should decide

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/nationalisation-vs-privatisation-public-view/

 

[scaramanga]

yes this is what you do - it is not what everyone does.

If people really wanted a free market they would vote with their morals, this would be a major policy point in any Party overriding most others.

You cant just repeat your dogma and make it fact.

Purchasing decisions are pure market decisions. The incentives and disincentives are only about the market in which that item exists. That purchasing decision shows a person's true preference towards the market conditions.

Votes in an election tie in thousands on non market-based decisions and can be very little to do with markets at all. Many people vote Labour because their parents did, or because somebody once described the Conservatives as "nasty" and they believed them. That's not a market decision, but that makes up much of our electorate.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Purchasing decisions are pure market decisions. The incentives and disincentives are only about the market in which that item exists. That purchasing decision shows a person's true preference towards the market conditions.

This is dogma not fact

the majority of the time I shop I do not have a clue or desire to find out how ethical the supplier is or even the minutiae of the arguments. We vote in governments that hire civil servants to do this for us. Why do I want to find out about pesticides and the potential impact it has on the environment. I vote in a party that has a view on this and they put it into practice - I suspect most others would be in the same situation.