I am not a socialist, but you make me want to listen to the arguments for socialism. Thanks. (Not sarcasm - genuine thanks)
This is a genuine question: how familiar are you with the economics of the late 19th century, particularly those in the United States? Because of a unique set of circumstances (rapid industrialization combined with western expansion), it was probably the most unfettered capitalism the world has ever known. It was also an economic system where the poverty experienced by most Americans was so profound that it shocked even those accustomed to Europe's harsh inequities, and where private companies hired others private companies to do violence against workers in the name of defending their property rights (really, to defend their ability to exploit workers), or merely enlisted the state militias, an easy task when the arch-capitalists were directly bankrolling government leaders. Massacres of workers striking for basic rights happened frequently. Broad attempts to strip the underclass of political rights to further entrench the system were the norm. It was also a system where crashes and economic depressions were commonplace, despite the abundant wealth that came with rapid population growth and the chance to exploit half of a continent in a span of a few decades. And those amazing, innovative creative ideas? They regularly got stolen from their creator. Thomas Edison did not invent many of the things he is credited with, but he was extremely litigious and wealthy, and used that to muscle inventors out of patents. Crushing poverty, enforced by state and private violence, extreme inequities, horrific work conditions, profound economic instability that slipped regularly into depression, and even if you were a genius who created something revolutionary, some rich asshole could come along and take it from you. Not exactly a period to emulate.
I said he was better ignored (which is my honest opinion). I think it's unnecessary and disgraceful that you think I shouldn't have said that. People can make their own minds up and you shouldn't be leading them to thinking that what I've done is wrong. Not surprised it wasn’t monitored by the Mods, think it should be. etc, etc.
The first day of the Joe Biden impeachment hearing happened today, and it featured: - The Republicans getting caught using a quote out of context to Photoshop a smoking gun 'text' (it was Biden's uncle suggesting to Biden's son that Biden would help him pay his alimony and had zero to do with any business arrangements): https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-accuses-gop-fabricating-203808449.html - Every single Republican witness admitting under oath that there was no direct evidence of Biden committing any crimes, and that there is currently nothing to impeach him over: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-impeachment-hearing_n_651586b6e4b05bd1c4d63408 - When called on the fact that he was alleging the sort of temporally-impossible things that seem to be common with the Biden conspiracies (namely, the Biden administration doing things in 2017, when there was no Biden administration), the Republican chairman of one of the committees involved declared that "he's not an expert on the timeline", and then refused to answer more questions on the matter: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...wer-questions-biden-allegations-bi-rcna117742 So this is off to a fantastic start.
Oh, didn't realised it was the exact choice of words that offended you enough to make you want my opinion to be modded out of existence. In that case I apologise unreservedly.
Modded out of existence, get a grip. Look Vin, if you think you acted with good intentions, in suggesting other forum members ignore someone, then that is up to you. I don’t agree with it, and called it out as I saw it. I do get the frustration over the cause, in that you felt someone wasn’t answering points you raised, and you wanted closure on this. Firstly, sometime we don’t always get the closure we personally need, and sometimes we need to find coping mechanisms to let that be. Secondly, I believe it isn’t really for anyone to suggest others people ignore them, in my view that is up to the individual to conclude, rather than being influenced - it enables better communication and freedom of personal thoughts without external interference. And lastly, this really isnt something to get you all angry about, and really not something I’m intending on chewing the fat over with you any further. Enjoy your Friday, Vin, really not worth getting all worked up about
Sometimes we are so set in an argument that we fail to see things where we might agree more than disagree I’ve highlighted two paras … 1 You champion capitalism and free speech, but then admit that capitalism is currently broken. I’m not sure anyone on here wants to ditch capitalism completely in the way you refer to it, but it is currently broken and that adversely affects free speech too. However, capitalism didn’t create the NHS and the welfare safety net that you acknowledge is required for some 2 You acknowledge the current systems failings in creating wealth disparity (ie Obscene wealth for some, poverty for many more) and refer to ‘attempts’ at socialism or communism, by these have actually probably all been Totalitarianism dressed up as something else. Stalin was no Socialist. I’m not sure anyone on here wants us to become a Socialist Republic like Russia or China I was brought up in a mixed economy where public services served the people and commercialism provided healthy competitiveness for other products, maybe the best of both worlds. And one supported by your description of what govt should do Quote ”I believe that government should have a small role in society. Essentially; protecting the public, keeping people safe, keeping law and order. Providing shared services which we can all agree on. Helping the disabled and the most vulnerable in society for sure” That model has been trashed, as you acknowledge
So Jeremy Hunt says taxes are too spiralling out if control and his solution is… the benefit system. The blaming of those who have not for the failures of those who have much is what is really spiralling out of control. Stop protecting your silver spoon suckling friends, Hunt. P.S. still waiting for that detailed response to my post @Osvaldorama
Don't hold your breath or expect a pertinent reply that addresses your comments with links to verifiable sources to information that refutes your points.
You've posted without comment IOAG but FWIW I think this is a very good article by Jo Bartosch. On this thread someone posted a Katy Montgomerie tweet where he compares trans rights to gay rights. It is a false equivalence. In this article, Jo Bartosch explains: Gay liberation was a fight to achieve legal parity with heterosexuals. The fight for trans rights is not about fairness or legal parity. It’s about allowing children to be put on experimental, puberty-blocking drugs, advocating for taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery and, above all, demanding that the rights of other groups, especially women, are infringed upon...The public is gradually waking up to the reality of transgender ideology and they don’t like it. This is something that is happening not just in the UK, but in other countries too - including Canada! '1 Million March 4 Children' recently took place in 102 Canadian cities - I believe further demonstrations are planned. Parents, concerned about SOGI in schools, marched with banners stating that it amounts to 'Indoctrination not Education' of their children. This, along with politicians like Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe who is pushing forward with his 'pronoun policy' (requiring parental consent for a child to change their name/pronoun) may be considered small steps but it is a growing resistance to gender ideology As Jo Bartosch writes, the more column inches in the press, the more public opinion begins to shift. It seems each week another international sporting body change their policy in order to exclude men who identify as trans from the women's category - this week C.I.P.S (International Confederation of Sport Fishing) did just that, with a little push from Emma Nicholson, Baroness of Winterbourne
Apologies @loading had a busy weekend. 1. I agree it is just a system. But it’s the best system we have ever devised. It has brought and insane amount of people globally out of poverty and continues to do so to this day. You say unfettered capitalism is the problem and I agree. Capitalism worked when even the elites had to follow the rules of the game. Now the game is rigged in the elites & governments favour. 2. This is the point I have a big issue with. I think your view of the world is flipped massively negatively. You say that the “wealth is sucked from the masses” and blame capitalism for that. I disagree & think this is a hugely negative/depressing view. I think the capitalist system is a huge net positive for the working & lower classes. I mentioned before I also agree that taxation is necessary, because I also agree that capital has a tendency to flow in one direction. I just don’t think this is because of greed or because rich people are inherently evil. I think it’s because there are specific rules to the game of wealth building which some people learn and some people don’t. To answer your question, a low-tax capitalist society works because people still need to spend money and generate new businesses and ideas. The problem is, it will only work on a true hard money standard, with properly enforced regulations. This is why I have been in agreement with you on many of your points. Currently, the government have their hands on the money printer and they will never give that power up. Because of this it completely distorts capitalism into the broken thing we see today. Almost all problems we see directly relate to easy printing of money and de-regulation of banks and institutions in my opinion. We are living in a society where you can’t trust the base layer of every single transaction. 3. Great question. I agree we need some regulations to prevent monopoly and increase competition. However once again you are looking on the negative side. Amazon has provided an incredible, valuable service to the world. It has many problems but it isn’t the parasite that you think it is. Once again I fear that you only see the negatives around capitalism and none of the benefits. After all, these companies can only grow if people are willing to pay for their services. 4.That was not a mis-direct. In my opinion printing of money is the direct cause of everything we are talking about. As you correctly mentioned, capitalism is just a system. But how can the system function if the literal base layer that we use to conduct all activity within the system is totally broken? As an analogy, try playing football with a punctured ball. That is essentially what has been happening. Every single economic transaction which takes place is severely distorted thanks to the broken money. Because finance is upstream of politics this leads to further problems. Also they do not just print at times of stress. They increase the printing then dramatically, but it goes on constantly. They just change the terms and hide what they’re actually doing. But if you look at the M1 & M2 money supply data there is only one direction. And that is currency debasement. I challenge you to read the book “the death of money’ which describes the hyperinflation in 1920s Germany. The parallels between then & now are eerily similar. What I am saying isn’t a mis-direct, it is the direct cause it just takes a couple of extra steps to arrive here. 5. Again, I disagree. The wealth inequality has increased dramatically alongside the increase of the money supply. There is a vast swathe of data on this. Assets are pumped in an insane bubble due to the easy production of money. It all comes back to this. It isn’t down to greed. It isn’t down to evil rich people. It is down to broken money. When every investment and transaction is distorted, you create a distorted society. When you then create regulation based on this distorted society, you create even more distortions away from reality. This is why funnily enough I do agree with a lot of what you say. Workers now do need to be protected with more unions and regulations because they are being scammed by the entire system. But not for the reasons you originally stated. Sources for money supply increase causing negative impacts on society here: www.wtfhappenedin1971.com
Thank you for your response, @Osvaldorama 1. I agree it is just a system. But it’s the best system we have ever devised. It has brought and insane amount of people globally out of poverty and continues to do so to this day. You say unfettered capitalism is the problem and I agree. Capitalism worked when even the elites had to follow the rules of the game. Now the game is rigged in the elites & governments favour. I agree almost entirely here. The issue is the acceptance that governments and the elites should side with each other. They shouldn't. We have had a government for a long time that is in the pocket of the wealthy and I would like to see us take a far harder line. It is interesting we are listed as the 12th best country in Europe in which to avoid tax: 11 Countries with The Lowest Taxes in Europe: 2023 Tax Guide (nomadcapitalist.com) 2. This is the point I have a big issue with. I think your view of the world is flipped massively negatively. You say that the “wealth is sucked from the masses” and blame capitalism for that. I disagree & think this is a hugely negative/depressing view. I think the capitalist system is a huge net positive for the working & lower classes. I mentioned before I also agree that taxation is necessary, because I also agree that capital has a tendency to flow in one direction. I just don’t think this is because of greed or because rich people are inherently evil. I think it’s because there are specific rules to the game of wealth building which some people learn and some people don’t. To answer your question, a low-tax capitalist society works because people still need to spend money and generate new businesses and ideas. The problem is, it will only work on a true hard money standard, with properly enforced regulations. This is why I have been in agreement with you on many of your points. Currently, the government have their hands on the money printer and they will never give that power up. Because of this it completely distorts capitalism into the broken thing we see today. Almost all problems we see directly relate to easy printing of money and de-regulation of banks and institutions in my opinion. We are living in a society where you can’t trust the base layer of every single transaction. The problem here is you say you disagree that wealth is sucked from the masses and then go on to say you agree that capital has a tendency to flow in one direction. The truth is that one direction is away from the masses. This is how money works. You have to have money to make money. You have to speculate to accumulate. It is very hard to make money if you don't have any and it is comparatively easy to make money if you already have it. Capitalism works as a concept. It is the agreement that a man's labour is worth a certain reward. However, it was not invented as a concept in an age of mass production. Now the man's labour - which is the most valuable part of the chain - is fixed in value and is no longer worth what he produces. If a man in medieval England had made a sword, he wouldn't get a flat rate per hour but the value of the sword. Now, the vast majority of us make things for others but never receive any of the value of that thing. This enables the few, who do very little apart from put up capital, to suck the wealth from the rest of us. Simply having capital makes capital and that means that the hard working many are downtrodden by the often lazy few. The concept of a low tax economy is fine, by the way. It suggests that we will make more money by tax as the economy grows. This has not been how things have gone the last 15 years. The cutting of taxes has left us socially deprived and with less spending power. More people than ever rely on state handout and food banks. If we taxed higher and invested in people then there would be more people with more wealth in better situations to spend. This is why taxes can rise and fall. You have to be able to recognise when society needs a boost through higher taxation and government spending. On the topic of printing money, this was done during lockdown as a way to balance the books. I am not keen on it either - and I wasn't really keen on lockdown. Again, lockdown hit the poorest hardest. All those middle class people taking pictures of themselves in a garden had no concept of the pain we put working class people who lived in tiny flats through. 3. Great question. I agree we need some regulations to prevent monopoly and increase competition. However once again you are looking on the negative side. Amazon has provided an incredible, valuable service to the world. It has many problems but it isn’t the parasite that you think it is. Once again I fear that you only see the negatives around capitalism and none of the benefits. After all, these companies can only grow if people are willing to pay for their services. There is a massive distinction between Amazon as product and Amazon as parasite. This is a company that not only streamlines wealth out of nations but also pays incredibly poorly and treats its staff really badly. It has reduced competition and damages the quality of capitalism as it acts pretty much as a monopoly. For me, the fact people are willing to pay for their services is part of the problem. We will always go for the cheapest and most convenient service, but that doesn't mean it is the best one for us. It would be better if we invested in local services and goods but more and more often it is easier to buy from Amazon. I am no different. I just bought a bed on Amazon. It has come all the way from China. I doubt anybody along the way received decent financial recompense for that bed. Anyway, the Americans themselves, those kings of capitalism, have accused Amazon of being an unfair business: A threat to Amazon and a test of the FTC: is this big tech’s antitrust reckoning? | Amazon | The Guardian 4.That was not a mis-direct. In my opinion printing of money is the direct cause of everything we are talking about. As you correctly mentioned, capitalism is just a system. But how can the system function if the literal base layer that we use to conduct all activity within the system is totally broken? As an analogy, try playing football with a punctured ball. That is essentially what has been happening. Every single economic transaction which takes place is severely distorted thanks to the broken money. Because finance is upstream of politics this leads to further problems. Also they do not just print at times of stress. They increase the printing then dramatically, but it goes on constantly. They just change the terms and hide what they’re actually doing. But if you look at the M1 & M2 money supply data there is only one direction. And that is currency debasement. I challenge you to read the book “the death of money’ which describes the hyperinflation in 1920s Germany. The parallels between then & now are eerily similar. What I am saying isn’t a mis-direct, it is the direct cause it just takes a couple of extra steps to arrive here. I will have to take a look at your book. I would point out that you cannot have a population that is growing and then keep the same amount of money. The few will have a greater and greater share of the wealth. Currency represents man's labour. It always has. There is vastly more of man's labour now than there has been in the history of time and therefore there needs to be more money to reflect this. I don't care if this debases the currency that 1% owns 99% of. We need to do as much as possible to share this wealth. 5. Again, I disagree. The wealth inequality has increased dramatically alongside the increase of the money supply. There is a vast swathe of data on this. Assets are pumped in an insane bubble due to the easy production of money. It all comes back to this. It isn’t down to greed. It isn’t down to evil rich people. It is down to broken money. When every investment and transaction is distorted, you create a distorted society. When you then create regulation based on this distorted society, you create even more distortions away from reality. We could argue on this topic all day. Wealth inequality has been expanding since the end of WW2 and is not purely (or I would say in any great way) down to currency debasement. It is down to a war on socialist policies that would redistribute wealth - a war which has come from wealthy men in the media and is supported by every Tory government. How can the French see that the energy industry is profitable and renationalise when we are still trying to give everything away?
btw - @......loading...... and @Osvaldorama - great to read through a well reasoned debate. Being a bit thick, I dont understand everything, but some I do and can see both sides of some of it. This was the sort of discussion I thought would be in this thread, to educate people, so it has only taken some 40k posts to get to it. Thanks for both of you for taking the time to understand one another, whilst inadvertently educating the poorly educated
Here, Here. Was just thinking the same. Two sides, both well put across with no sniping. In fact it is more reasoned and more civil that most of the debates on TV
