|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 7, 2018 6:17:57 GMT
Once again, you are not describing capitalism, rather the corruptable nature of the human race. The fact history has proven socialism and communism to be as equally corruptable, you are either suggesting that they are inherently flawed systems or acknowledging humans are easily corrupted by power, greed and ideology.... No different to capitalism there mate. Contrary to hard left propaganda, capitalism is the only real meritocracy. It's a shit meritocracy, whereby billionaire shareholders can benefit from the Labour of others, however it's also the only system where a working class lad with the right amount of drive and motivation can make something of their life. Young people raised in working class homes CAN be successful.... How much do you want it? That's the question and that's up to you and the amount of time you are willing to dedicate to achieving your goals. I worked in a McDonald's and then later a pub, serving people who looked down their noses at me to fund my university tuition. That tuition hugely benefited me in my career and further hard work and dedication at work allowed me the chance to earn more than my parents earned between them at their peak.... I'm only 28. And you want to implement a system where that effort and dedication wasn't rewarded? No thanks, I'll pass. Answer me this.... I know nothing about you at all. I don't know where you live, what your lifestyle is like, but I suspect it's better than it would be under communism. How much would you be willing to give up, to implement communism/socialism? Say you live in a nice 4 bed house that you worked all your life for, would you be willing to give that up? Your nice car? Your nice TV? Your nice gadgets? Private tuition for kids so they can enjoy a better life for themselves? I ask because a lot of people support strong wealth redistribution and welfare states when they know there is a 0% chance of it ever happening...... Like the hard left in the UK. By the way, please don't take any of this personally as it's not aimed in that way. I'm enjoying the debate and it's what makes the EE board arguably more interesting than the SCFC board. Capitalism is not a meritocracy, not even close. The market economy has led to there being a "precariat" at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Many people at the bottom will never "make something of their life" no matter how hard they work or how much drive and motivation they have. Also, where are these people meant to derive their drive and motivation from? And what if they have bags of drive and motivation but low intelligence and can only ever hope to be a cleaner or care worker or waiter, for example? Are you saying they should be happy with the low wages the capitalist economy has foisted on them and that their occasional holiday or meal out is adequate compensation for working their arses off? What happens further up the social ladder is that wealth and privilege becomes completely entrenched through generations of wealthy people helping out their children and peers. These people might pay way more in tax than those lower down the income scale but recent history has proven beyond doubt that trickle down economics in a capitalist economy does not work. Plus beyond a certain level there all kinds of loop holes for people to avoid paying their share of tax. The poor remain poor and the rich remain rich, regardless of the odd person moving up or down the ladder. A true meritocracy would see total equality of opportunity, as you suggest capitalism provides. You've swallowed the kind of false "anyone can do anything they want to if they work hard enough" narrative the likes Tony Blair and David Cameron used to bang on about to make people believe in capitalism's hype. No they can't. Most people end up with a shit load of debt because they think that's what everyone does. The system is rigged against millions of people and rigged for millions of others and needs a total re-think. A Universal Basic Income would be a good place to start but even Labour didn't have the bollocks to put anything about that in their manifesto last year, despite being as left-wing as they now supposedly are. Automation is coming and it will have an impact on a lot of highly-paid jobs, such as lawyers and doctors. Very soon computers and machines will replace specialised skills and knowledge, as well as manual labour and a lot of jobs in the so-called "service industry" that employs a big chunk of our population. I don't believe in the UK as a progressive, forward-thinking country so I expect we'll realise the consequences way too late and bodge it. Hopefully the bodge globally is big enough for the whole lot to be ripped up and we can start again from nought because that's what we need. Now that was not long winded. Just 3 well proportioned, intelligent paragraphs rather than a dirge of clichės 👏 Don't be slaves...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2018 6:18:09 GMT
Can't blame Maggie She just had the bollocks to do something link
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Sept 7, 2018 7:36:20 GMT
If it's a call to socialism, why should I buy it? It should be free. I'll send you my copy for free if you like? You're alright mate thanks.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 7, 2018 8:28:57 GMT
When the Tories closed Hem Heath, it was one of the most efficient pits in the world.
What Thatcher's did to miners and pits had no economic sense, it was a pure and vindictive act of revenge for the miners bringing down ted Heath in 1974.
By God that woman was a destructive witch.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 8:37:54 GMT
Capitalism is not a meritocracy, not even close. The market economy has led to there being a "precariat" at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Many people at the bottom will never "make something of their life" no matter how hard they work or how much drive and motivation they have. Also, where are these people meant to derive their drive and motivation from? And what if they have bags of drive and motivation but low intelligence and can only ever hope to be a cleaner or care worker or waiter, for example? Are you saying they should be happy with the low wages the capitalist economy has foisted on them and that their occasional holiday or meal out is adequate compensation for working their arses off? What happens further up the social ladder is that wealth and privilege becomes completely entrenched through generations of wealthy people helping out their children and peers. These people might pay way more in tax than those lower down the income scale but recent history has proven beyond doubt that trickle down economics in a capitalist economy does not work. Plus beyond a certain level there all kinds of loop holes for people to avoid paying their share of tax. The poor remain poor and the rich remain rich, regardless of the odd person moving up or down the ladder. A true meritocracy would see total equality of opportunity, as you suggest capitalism provides. You've swallowed the kind of false "anyone can do anything they want to if they work hard enough" narrative the likes Tony Blair and David Cameron used to bang on about to make people believe in capitalism's hype. No they can't. Most people end up with a shit load of debt because they think that's what everyone does. The system is rigged against millions of people and rigged for millions of others and needs a total re-think. A Universal Basic Income would be a good place to start but even Labour didn't have the bollocks to put anything about that in their manifesto last year, despite being as left-wing as they now supposedly are. Automation is coming and it will have an impact on a lot of highly-paid jobs, such as lawyers and doctors. Very soon computers and machines will replace specialised skills and knowledge, as well as manual labour and a lot of jobs in the so-called "service industry" that employs a big chunk of our population. I don't believe in the UK as a progressive, forward-thinking country so I expect we'll realise the consequences way too late and bodge it. Hopefully the bodge globally is big enough for the whole lot to be ripped up and we can start again from nought because that's what we need. Capitalism is not an ideal meritocracy, 'not even close' (as you put it), but can you explain to me how socialism/communism are better meritocracies other than rewarding potentially unequal amounts of effort equally? I am wholly aware that Capitalism is not a good meritocracy; as I've acknowledged above, the people at the top continue to make the most money for limited contribution while the poor operational workers almost always work the hardest. "If you work hard enough son, put all that effort in, I might be able to buy another Yacht next year" being an old phrase I used to utter at work. However, under a communist system, I suspect we would reward 'contribution' as we strive towards our 'common goal', but what is our goal exactly? A classless baseless society? So basically everyone living in poverty right....? Well, excluding those who are actually in power who almost always live in luxury (those pesky Capit....Commies) because they usually exert control over national resources. What do you mean 'low intelligence? Are we talking academic or just generally speaking? I have friends who are not 'traditionally' academic (i.e. University educated etc) but have gone on to be successful and earn way over the UK average income. I wonder how they did it considering the capitalist system is in place to keep them down? Capitalism must be raging at their success considering it is rigged to keep them pegged in a 1 bedroom flat in Bucknall. I suspect they made slightly wiser choices than some of their classmates who haven't been as successful (i.e. didn't have kids young, didn't spunk all their wages on drugs and alcohol, didn't rush into early marriage etc) and therefore were able to reap the benefits of their 'wiser choices'. It's funny how you want to reward people for their wise choices by forcing them into a perpetual state of poverty, so they can be on the same level as people who made, well, shit life choices. Nobody should be happy with piss poor wages, but once again, that is a government issue. The minimum wage is far too low and I've said that for years, being the big horrible capitalist that I am. I do agree that a Universal Basic Income would be an excellent idea and I would wholly support it. However, you (and all other communists) are still suggesting that people who have been successful under Capitalism, have done so because of some 'leg-up'.... I can tell you from experience, hard work got me to where I am. Seeing as I can only get condescending shit from bathstoke etc, I'll wrap it up here.... Tony Blair, David Cameron's words, yeah it's lip service.... I always wanted to be a professional footballer, but I lacked the physical build to make it. I would love to write a song and make a hit record and tour the world.... isn't going to happen. What they really meant to say was "if you are willing to work hard enough, dedicate your time to your career instead of pro-creating, better yourself as a person so that you are more qualified than your peers, then it is possible to make something of yourself" and while it's not 100% true for everyone, it is the reality for a lot. Many many MANY people (myself included), that is actually a demonstrable reality. To round off another long winded pile of shit: I recently saw a girl in town who I was good friends with at school. She used to joke when we were at high school about how when she was a big CEO (#Capitalism), she would hire me to be her PA just so she could tell me to make her a coffee. She was dead clever as well, much smarter than me. I asked her what she was doing these days and she said living at home with her mum. She had kids young, rushed into a hasty marriage young, has since had a fairly unpleasant divorce and is now in a state of social and economic limbo.... I am in no doubt that had she put in half the effort I put in, she would have gone on to be far more successful than I can ever dream of.... she didn't, she openly admits that she took an easier option of settling down far too young to be a 'mum' as her fella was working and it backfired spectacularly. Life's a gamble.... that's capitalism I suppose. Now that was not long winded. Just 3 well proportioned, intelligent paragraphs rather than a dirge of clichės 👏 Don't be slaves... You mean three paragraphs that you agree with.... Behave mate, you're easier to read than a kids book.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 8:38:28 GMT
When the Tories closed Hem Heath, it was one of the most efficient pits in the world. What Thatcher's did to miners and pits had no economic sense, it was a pure and vindictive act of revenge for the miners bringing down ted Heath in 1974. By God that woman was a destructive witch. Agreed. See, we agree on some things
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 7, 2018 12:21:56 GMT
Capitalism is not a meritocracy, not even close. The market economy has led to there being a "precariat" at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Many people at the bottom will never "make something of their life" no matter how hard they work or how much drive and motivation they have. Also, where are these people meant to derive their drive and motivation from? And what if they have bags of drive and motivation but low intelligence and can only ever hope to be a cleaner or care worker or waiter, for example? Are you saying they should be happy with the low wages the capitalist economy has foisted on them and that their occasional holiday or meal out is adequate compensation for working their arses off? What happens further up the social ladder is that wealth and privilege becomes completely entrenched through generations of wealthy people helping out their children and peers. These people might pay way more in tax than those lower down the income scale but recent history has proven beyond doubt that trickle down economics in a capitalist economy does not work. Plus beyond a certain level there all kinds of loop holes for people to avoid paying their share of tax. The poor remain poor and the rich remain rich, regardless of the odd person moving up or down the ladder. A true meritocracy would see total equality of opportunity, as you suggest capitalism provides. You've swallowed the kind of false "anyone can do anything they want to if they work hard enough" narrative the likes Tony Blair and David Cameron used to bang on about to make people believe in capitalism's hype. No they can't. Most people end up with a shit load of debt because they think that's what everyone does. The system is rigged against millions of people and rigged for millions of others and needs a total re-think. A Universal Basic Income would be a good place to start but even Labour didn't have the bollocks to put anything about that in their manifesto last year, despite being as left-wing as they now supposedly are. Automation is coming and it will have an impact on a lot of highly-paid jobs, such as lawyers and doctors. Very soon computers and machines will replace specialised skills and knowledge, as well as manual labour and a lot of jobs in the so-called "service industry" that employs a big chunk of our population. I don't believe in the UK as a progressive, forward-thinking country so I expect we'll realise the consequences way too late and bodge it. Hopefully the bodge globally is big enough for the whole lot to be ripped up and we can start again from nought because that's what we need. Capitalism is not an ideal meritocracy, 'not even close' (as you put it), but can you explain to me how socialism/communism are better meritocracies other than rewarding potentially unequal amounts of effort equally? I am wholly aware that Capitalism is not a good meritocracy; as I've acknowledged above, the people at the top continue to make the most money for limited contribution while the poor operational workers almost always work the hardest. "If you work hard enough son, put all that effort in, I might be able to buy another Yacht next year" being an old phrase I used to utter at work. However, under a communist system, I suspect we would reward 'contribution' as we strive towards our 'common goal', but what is our goal exactly? A classless baseless society? So basically everyone living in poverty right....? Well, excluding those who are actually in power who almost always live in luxury (those pesky Capit....Commies) because they usually exert control over national resources. What do you mean 'low intelligence? Are we talking academic or just generally speaking? I have friends who are not 'traditionally' academic (i.e. University educated etc) but have gone on to be successful and earn way over the UK average income. I wonder how they did it considering the capitalist system is in place to keep them down? Capitalism must be raging at their success considering it is rigged to keep them pegged in a 1 bedroom flat in Bucknall. I suspect they made slightly wiser choices than some of their classmates who haven't been as successful (i.e. didn't have kids young, didn't spunk all their wages on drugs and alcohol, didn't rush into early marriage etc) and therefore were able to reap the benefits of their 'wiser choices'. It's funny how you want to reward people for their wise choices by forcing them into a perpetual state of poverty, so they can be on the same level as people who made, well, shit life choices. Nobody should be happy with piss poor wages, but once again, that is a government issue. The minimum wage is far too low and I've said that for years, being the big horrible capitalist that I am. I do agree that a Universal Basic Income would be an excellent idea and I would wholly support it. However, you (and all other communists) are still suggesting that people who have been successful under Capitalism, have done so because of some 'leg-up'.... I can tell you from experience, hard work got me to where I am. Seeing as I can only get condescending shit from bathstoke etc, I'll wrap it up here.... Tony Blair, David Cameron's words, yeah it's lip service.... I always wanted to be a professional footballer, but I lacked the physical build to make it. I would love to write a song and make a hit record and tour the world.... isn't going to happen. What they really meant to say was "if you are willing to work hard enough, dedicate your time to your career instead of pro-creating, better yourself as a person so that you are more qualified than your peers, then it is possible to make something of yourself" and while it's not 100% true for everyone, it is the reality for a lot. Many many MANY people (myself included), that is actually a demonstrable reality. To round off another long winded pile of shit: I recently saw a girl in town who I was good friends with at school. She used to joke when we were at high school about how when she was a big CEO (#Capitalism), she would hire me to be her PA just so she could tell me to make her a coffee. She was dead clever as well, much smarter than me. I asked her what she was doing these days and she said living at home with her mum. She had kids young, rushed into a hasty marriage young, has since had a fairly unpleasant divorce and is now in a state of social and economic limbo.... I am in no doubt that had she put in half the effort I put in, she would have gone on to be far more successful than I can ever dream of.... she didn't, she openly admits that she took an easier option of settling down far too young to be a 'mum' as her fella was working and it backfired spectacularly. Life's a gamble.... that's capitalism I suppose. Now that was not long winded. Just 3 well proportioned, intelligent paragraphs rather than a dirge of clichės 👏 Don't be slaves... You mean three paragraphs that you agree with.... Behave mate, you're easier to read than a kids book. If you work as much as you talk, you must be a millionaire! Anyway, Here’s a kids story for you... Once upon a time there was a nasty troll called MetalMicky who used to pester the poor billy goats... 🐐
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 12:54:18 GMT
Capitalism is not an ideal meritocracy, 'not even close' (as you put it), but can you explain to me how socialism/communism are better meritocracies other than rewarding potentially unequal amounts of effort equally? I am wholly aware that Capitalism is not a good meritocracy; as I've acknowledged above, the people at the top continue to make the most money for limited contribution while the poor operational workers almost always work the hardest. "If you work hard enough son, put all that effort in, I might be able to buy another Yacht next year" being an old phrase I used to utter at work. However, under a communist system, I suspect we would reward 'contribution' as we strive towards our 'common goal', but what is our goal exactly? A classless baseless society? So basically everyone living in poverty right....? Well, excluding those who are actually in power who almost always live in luxury (those pesky Capit....Commies) because they usually exert control over national resources. What do you mean 'low intelligence? Are we talking academic or just generally speaking? I have friends who are not 'traditionally' academic (i.e. University educated etc) but have gone on to be successful and earn way over the UK average income. I wonder how they did it considering the capitalist system is in place to keep them down? Capitalism must be raging at their success considering it is rigged to keep them pegged in a 1 bedroom flat in Bucknall. I suspect they made slightly wiser choices than some of their classmates who haven't been as successful (i.e. didn't have kids young, didn't spunk all their wages on drugs and alcohol, didn't rush into early marriage etc) and therefore were able to reap the benefits of their 'wiser choices'. It's funny how you want to reward people for their wise choices by forcing them into a perpetual state of poverty, so they can be on the same level as people who made, well, shit life choices. Nobody should be happy with piss poor wages, but once again, that is a government issue. The minimum wage is far too low and I've said that for years, being the big horrible capitalist that I am. I do agree that a Universal Basic Income would be an excellent idea and I would wholly support it. However, you (and all other communists) are still suggesting that people who have been successful under Capitalism, have done so because of some 'leg-up'.... I can tell you from experience, hard work got me to where I am. Seeing as I can only get condescending shit from bathstoke etc, I'll wrap it up here.... Tony Blair, David Cameron's words, yeah it's lip service.... I always wanted to be a professional footballer, but I lacked the physical build to make it. I would love to write a song and make a hit record and tour the world.... isn't going to happen. What they really meant to say was "if you are willing to work hard enough, dedicate your time to your career instead of pro-creating, better yourself as a person so that you are more qualified than your peers, then it is possible to make something of yourself" and while it's not 100% true for everyone, it is the reality for a lot. Many many MANY people (myself included), that is actually a demonstrable reality. To round off another long winded pile of shit: I recently saw a girl in town who I was good friends with at school. She used to joke when we were at high school about how when she was a big CEO (#Capitalism), she would hire me to be her PA just so she could tell me to make her a coffee. She was dead clever as well, much smarter than me. I asked her what she was doing these days and she said living at home with her mum. She had kids young, rushed into a hasty marriage young, has since had a fairly unpleasant divorce and is now in a state of social and economic limbo.... I am in no doubt that had she put in half the effort I put in, she would have gone on to be far more successful than I can ever dream of.... she didn't, she openly admits that she took an easier option of settling down far too young to be a 'mum' as her fella was working and it backfired spectacularly. Life's a gamble.... that's capitalism I suppose. You mean three paragraphs that you agree with.... Behave mate, you're easier to read than a kids book. If you work as much as you talk, you must be a millionaire! Anyway, Here’s a kids story for you... Once upon a time there was a nasty troll called MetalMicky who used to pester the poor billy goats... 🐐 Unfortunately capitalism doesn't reward people for talking, so no, I'm not a millionaire. It doesn't reward people who spout pure bollocks either... Hence why you're not a millionaire Bath. Maybe pack it in and move to Russia?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Sept 7, 2018 13:44:11 GMT
When the Tories closed Hem Heath, it was one of the most efficient pits in the world. What Thatcher's did to miners and pits had no economic sense, it was a pure and vindictive act of revenge for the miners bringing down ted Heath in 1974. By God that woman was a destructive witch. If they were economically viable, or even close to being so - why did almost all the remainder close during labours subsequent 15 year rule ? There may have been an elemnt of revenge, but to say it was purely about that isn't backed up by the facts. nb) Twice as many jobs were lost in mining in the 60's as in the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 7, 2018 13:44:33 GMT
If you work as much as you talk, you must be a millionaire! Anyway, Here’s a kids story for you... Once upon a time there was a nasty troll called MetalMicky who used to pester the poor billy goats... 🐐 Unfortunately capitalism doesn't reward people for talking, so no, I'm not a millionaire. It doesn't reward people who spout pure bollocks either... Hence why you're not a millionaire Bath. Maybe pack it in and move to Russia? How do you know I’m not a millionaire... 🍾
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 14:26:37 GMT
Unfortunately capitalism doesn't reward people for talking, so no, I'm not a millionaire. It doesn't reward people who spout pure bollocks either... Hence why you're not a millionaire Bath. Maybe pack it in and move to Russia? How do you know I’m not a millionaire... 🍾 Well you wouldn't be a socialist for one.... Although feel free to make it rain
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 7, 2018 14:58:36 GMT
When the Tories closed Hem Heath, it was one of the most efficient pits in the world. What Thatcher's did to miners and pits had no economic sense, it was a pure and vindictive act of revenge for the miners bringing down ted Heath in 1974. By God that woman was a destructive witch. Maggie didn't close hem Heath , or silverdale or Trentham , Florence either . The mining unions were the vindictive ones . Bringing down governments???? By a bunch of Marxist union leaders . Using the members of the NUM to achieve their political objectives , which was to bring down thatchers government. And you now fawn over putins useful idiot whilst trying to destroy the memory of the one politician that had a major influence in transforming this country
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Sept 7, 2018 15:14:06 GMT
Capitalism is not a meritocracy, not even close. The market economy has led to there being a "precariat" at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. Many people at the bottom will never "make something of their life" no matter how hard they work or how much drive and motivation they have. Also, where are these people meant to derive their drive and motivation from? And what if they have bags of drive and motivation but low intelligence and can only ever hope to be a cleaner or care worker or waiter, for example? Are you saying they should be happy with the low wages the capitalist economy has foisted on them and that their occasional holiday or meal out is adequate compensation for working their arses off? What happens further up the social ladder is that wealth and privilege becomes completely entrenched through generations of wealthy people helping out their children and peers. These people might pay way more in tax than those lower down the income scale but recent history has proven beyond doubt that trickle down economics in a capitalist economy does not work. Plus beyond a certain level there all kinds of loop holes for people to avoid paying their share of tax. The poor remain poor and the rich remain rich, regardless of the odd person moving up or down the ladder. A true meritocracy would see total equality of opportunity, as you suggest capitalism provides. You've swallowed the kind of false "anyone can do anything they want to if they work hard enough" narrative the likes Tony Blair and David Cameron used to bang on about to make people believe in capitalism's hype. No they can't. Most people end up with a shit load of debt because they think that's what everyone does. The system is rigged against millions of people and rigged for millions of others and needs a total re-think. A Universal Basic Income would be a good place to start but even Labour didn't have the bollocks to put anything about that in their manifesto last year, despite being as left-wing as they now supposedly are. Automation is coming and it will have an impact on a lot of highly-paid jobs, such as lawyers and doctors. Very soon computers and machines will replace specialised skills and knowledge, as well as manual labour and a lot of jobs in the so-called "service industry" that employs a big chunk of our population. I don't believe in the UK as a progressive, forward-thinking country so I expect we'll realise the consequences way too late and bodge it. Hopefully the bodge globally is big enough for the whole lot to be ripped up and we can start again from nought because that's what we need. Capitalism is not an ideal meritocracy, 'not even close' (as you put it), but can you explain to me how socialism/communism are better meritocracies other than rewarding potentially unequal amounts of effort equally? I am wholly aware that Capitalism is not a good meritocracy; as I've acknowledged above, the people at the top continue to make the most money for limited contribution while the poor operational workers almost always work the hardest. "If you work hard enough son, put all that effort in, I might be able to buy another Yacht next year" being an old phrase I used to utter at work. However, under a communist system, I suspect we would reward 'contribution' as we strive towards our 'common goal', but what is our goal exactly? A classless baseless society? So basically everyone living in poverty right....? Well, excluding those who are actually in power who almost always live in luxury (those pesky Capit....Commies) because they usually exert control over national resources. What do you mean 'low intelligence? Are we talking academic or just generally speaking? I have friends who are not 'traditionally' academic (i.e. University educated etc) but have gone on to be successful and earn way over the UK average income. I wonder how they did it considering the capitalist system is in place to keep them down? Capitalism must be raging at their success considering it is rigged to keep them pegged in a 1 bedroom flat in Bucknall. I suspect they made slightly wiser choices than some of their classmates who haven't been as successful (i.e. didn't have kids young, didn't spunk all their wages on drugs and alcohol, didn't rush into early marriage etc) and therefore were able to reap the benefits of their 'wiser choices'. It's funny how you want to reward people for their wise choices by forcing them into a perpetual state of poverty, so they can be on the same level as people who made, well, shit life choices. Nobody should be happy with piss poor wages, but once again, that is a government issue. The minimum wage is far too low and I've said that for years, being the big horrible capitalist that I am. I do agree that a Universal Basic Income would be an excellent idea and I would wholly support it. However, you (and all other communists) are still suggesting that people who have been successful under Capitalism, have done so because of some 'leg-up'.... I can tell you from experience, hard work got me to where I am. Seeing as I can only get condescending shit from bathstoke etc, I'll wrap it up here.... Tony Blair, David Cameron's words, yeah it's lip service.... I always wanted to be a professional footballer, but I lacked the physical build to make it. I would love to write a song and make a hit record and tour the world.... isn't going to happen. What they really meant to say was "if you are willing to work hard enough, dedicate your time to your career instead of pro-creating, better yourself as a person so that you are more qualified than your peers, then it is possible to make something of yourself" and while it's not 100% true for everyone, it is the reality for a lot. Many many MANY people (myself included), that is actually a demonstrable reality. To round off another long winded pile of shit: I recently saw a girl in town who I was good friends with at school. She used to joke when we were at high school about how when she was a big CEO (#Capitalism), she would hire me to be her PA just so she could tell me to make her a coffee. She was dead clever as well, much smarter than me. I asked her what she was doing these days and she said living at home with her mum. She had kids young, rushed into a hasty marriage young, has since had a fairly unpleasant divorce and is now in a state of social and economic limbo.... I am in no doubt that had she put in half the effort I put in, she would have gone on to be far more successful than I can ever dream of.... she didn't, she openly admits that she took an easier option of settling down far too young to be a 'mum' as her fella was working and it backfired spectacularly. Life's a gamble.... that's capitalism I suppose. Now that was not long winded. Just 3 well proportioned, intelligent paragraphs rather than a dirge of clichės 👏 Don't be slaves... You mean three paragraphs that you agree with.... Behave mate, you're easier to read than a kids book. Capitalism is the system where most people are not rewarded in accordance to the amount of effort they put in. It is the worst system on that measure by far. Our goal should be human happiness, fulfilment and the continuation of a civilised race on a healthy planet. Capitalism's goals run contrary to that. By "low intelligence" I effectively mean people who have been excluded from a decent education at an early age by their misfortune of birth and can only see a menial/low-paid job as the source of their survival. There are millions of people in that situation and I've worked with hundreds of them in the last 12 years. They have generally been oppressed by a system which is rigged against them. Capitalism breeds selfishness. The way you talk about people making "shit life choices" is appalling. Most people at the bottom have no choice and you've managed to cross over into snobbery there. Also: we need people doing menial jobs and they should be rewarded a lot more handsomely than those doing "bullshit jobs"*. Anyway, who says working your arse off for 40+ hours a week is what we should be doing? It's clearly invented bollocks to maintain the consumer capitalist status quo.** I made a point of saying people move up and down the income scale and that their socio-economic class at birth does not definitively determine their route through life. It does for the vast majority, however.*** I'm sure you worked very hard to get to where you've got to. Whilst I wouldn't describe myself as a capitalist, neither would I say I'm a socialist or communist so please don't pigeon-hole me as you have done. There's obviously a perfectly workable system using chunks of already-existing theories and adding plenty too; UBI for example, and smashing the theory of the 35-40 hour working week to bits. Our problem is that we have deregulated the market economy to the extent that it is now so out of control that even major financial crashes are only a minor blip for the hyper-capitalist sociopaths running the show. We shouldn't accept some form of capitalism because "other systems don't work". We should be fighting tooth and nail to bring about a wholesale change in mentality and global direction. The trouble is we can't because we're all so so busy working so we don't die in a ditch. Oh, and so we can buy stuff; replacing actual human feelings of happiness and contentedness with the temporary buzz of getting a new thing. * www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-review** www.ft.com/content/46ae5d52-8f80-11e5-a549-b89a1dfede9b*** eprints.lse.ac.uk/82334/1/Researching%20Sociology%20%40%20LSE%20%E2%80%93%20Social%20Class%20in%20the%2021st%20Century_%20An%20Interview%20with%20Mike%20Savage.pdf
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 17:15:57 GMT
Capitalism is the system where most people are not rewarded in accordance to the amount of effort they put in. It is the worst system on that measure by far. Our goal should be human happiness, fulfilment and the continuation of a civilised race on a healthy planet. Capitalism's goals run contrary to that. By "low intelligence" I effectively mean people who have been excluded from a decent education at an early age by their misfortune of birth and can only see a menial/low-paid job as the source of their survival. There are millions of people in that situation and I've worked with hundreds of them in the last 12 years. They have generally been oppressed by a system which is rigged against them. Capitalism breeds selfishness. The way you talk about people making "shit life choices" is appalling. Most people at the bottom have no choice and you've managed to cross over into snobbery there. Also: we need people doing menial jobs and they should be rewarded a lot more handsomely than those doing "bullshit jobs"*. Anyway, who says working your arse off for 40+ hours a week is what we should be doing? It's clearly invented bollocks to maintain the consumer capitalist status quo.** I made a point of saying people move up and down the income scale and that their socio-economic class at birth does not definitively determine their route through life. It does for the vast majority, however.*** I'm sure you worked very hard to get to where you've got to. Whilst I wouldn't describe myself as a capitalist, neither would I say I'm a socialist or communist so please don't pigeon-hole me as you have done. There's obviously a perfectly workable system using chunks of already-existing theories and adding plenty too; UBI for example, and smashing the theory of the 35-40 hour working week to bits. Our problem is that we have deregulated the market economy to the extent that it is now so out of control that even major financial crashes are only a minor blip for the hyper-capitalist sociopaths running the show. We shouldn't accept some form of capitalism because "other systems don't work". We should be fighting tooth and nail to bring about a wholesale change in mentality and global direction. The trouble is we can't because we're all so so busy working so we don't die in a ditch. Oh, and so we can buy stuff; replacing actual human feelings of happiness and contentedness with the temporary buzz of getting a new thing. * www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-review** www.ft.com/content/46ae5d52-8f80-11e5-a549-b89a1dfede9b*** eprints.lse.ac.uk/82334/1/Researching%20Sociology%20%40%20LSE%20%E2%80%93%20Social%20Class%20in%20the%2021st%20Century_%20An%20Interview%20with%20Mike%20Savage.pdfFirstly, thank you for providing an articulate response. Bathstoke has decided to post nothing instead of actually addressing the points now, so it's good to have a reasoned discussion with someone who is willing. At the end of the day, I enjoy these kind of debates because who knows what is right eh? We only know how bad 'crony capitalism' is because we've lived under it; there is an element of hypothesising here, which is understandable Let me pick at a few things you posted: I totally agree that our goals in life should be happiness and fulfilment; however, one persons happiness is another persons misery, and another persons fulfilment will not necessarily satisfy someone else. What you are suggesting in effect, is that everyone should be forced to have the same desires in life. Also, while I agree that capitalism works against the notion of a 'healthy' planet (seeing as we are depleting the resources we have available to further materialism), it is once again human greed that is accelerating the destruction of our fragile existence. Why is it, that in an era of modern efficient cars, people continue to purchase powerful inefficient vehicles that are actually completely unnecessary and inappropriate. It all goes back to human nature and the power of self absorbed materialistic personalities. Education in this country is shit, but is that the failing of capitalism or the government? Most schools are state run entities and it is up to the government to ensure our next generation are given the best education possible. Successive governments have utterly ruined our education system with red tape and eroded the few benefits that were afforded to teachers (good pensions etc). I remember it being a long standing joke at college "worst case scenario, you can always become a teacher" and this was before the big pension disputes etc. Now, we have underpaid and under-qualified teachers in poorly funded schools...... No wonder our youngsters are suffering. Winding back a bit though, I went to a dreadful school in Stoke that was in special measures at the time; so did my friends who I mentioned earlier. You could say a lot schools in Stoke are like that, and yet despite all these 'barriers', we did okay and others continue to make good in life... why? If we want to go next level here, I was literally excluded from education, let alone a decent one. I don't usually talk about this, but I was kicked out of high school in Year 11 for fighting. I was allowed to take my exams (which I now realise was simply a great way of them earning some money off my back) but I was also told that I was not welcome to attend Sixth Form and to basically get fucked. At that point, I could have taken it as a green light to be a total prick. Instead, I enrolled at Newcastle College. I worked a number of jobs while at college to fund things like travel and just general living costs. I studied hard and subsequently was able to get into a University... I funded that using a student loan (which I continue to pay) but mostly by working in a pub. I graduated, got a job, and years later I'm where I am today. So that brings me onto your paragraph about my comments on 'life choices' being appalling.... Why are they appalling? I am not trying to be snobby, but why would I sugar coat something that is a fact? There is no correct answer to life but you can evaluate it on a decision-by-decision basis. The girl I mentioned in my previous post came from an affluent background. Her older sisters (also very intelligent) have gone on to be successful. She had certain opportunities presented on a plate that I had to work for. She had an opportunity to go to a University herself (a better one than me). She was given decisions to make, and decided to marry young, have a few kids without a sustainable form of income and piss off education for homemaking. Those decisions were hers. It's a terrible shame that 10 years on, she finds herself on the metaphorical scrapheap, but I also find it difficult to have truck loads of sympathy for her. Is it fair that she is at home with her mum? Absolutely not and I have no issue with the fact she claimed benefits as a stay-at-home mum while I worked hard and paid tax, but I do have an issue with the fact that 10 or so years on, you effectively want me to be penalised because she has found herself in an absolute shit sandwich. It's almost like you are suggesting that we need a form of affirmative action? Please tell me that is not the case. Also a very good question, who says working your arse for 40 hours a week is what we should be doing? How would implementing communism/socialism address this issue? Are we going to do 20 or maybe 10 hours a week? Sign me up tomorrow..... except we won't be doing 20 hours a week/ The average working week in the Soviet Union was somewhere between 60 and 70 hours a week. Most males worked 10-12 hours a day pre-revolution: "How vanderful it voz in Motta Rosha" eh? I just want to point out, that I never said "bullshit jobs". There's no such thing as bullshit jobs, just jobs, but if that is what you refer to them, then I worked plenty of 'bullshit jobs' in my early days, so I have absolutely no reason to be snobby. My younger self was seasoned veteran of those particular roles, so I agree from experience that people in those jobs are not paid fairly. That is because government has allowed capitalism to become what is it today: Zero hour contracts, piss poor wages and disposability. People in those roles are generally seen as disposable. If you complain about your wage being poor, well you can fuck off and they can replace you with someone else. Had the government actually introduced a Universal Basic Income, like you suggested, then this wouldn't be an issue.... but then it's crony capitalism, isn't it? Apologies for pigeon-holing you; reading back, it does come across that way. I am in no doubt, that most people will take away from this thread that I am hard right or conservative, despite the fact I continue to vote labour. I openly admit that my loyalty to labour is wavering, but I am still a strong believer in the social welfare system and most of what Labour stands for. I will never vote Conservative, so it's Lab or nobody. I agree that a mix of all systems would obviously be the perfect solution.... whether it happens though.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 17:17:06 GMT
Just reading the bullshit jobs article now. Very interesting....
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 7, 2018 18:52:19 GMT
Capitalism is the system where most people are not rewarded in accordance to the amount of effort they put in. It is the worst system on that measure by far. Our goal should be human happiness, fulfilment and the continuation of a civilised race on a healthy planet. Capitalism's goals run contrary to that. By "low intelligence" I effectively mean people who have been excluded from a decent education at an early age by their misfortune of birth and can only see a menial/low-paid job as the source of their survival. There are millions of people in that situation and I've worked with hundreds of them in the last 12 years. They have generally been oppressed by a system which is rigged against them. Capitalism breeds selfishness. The way you talk about people making "shit life choices" is appalling. Most people at the bottom have no choice and you've managed to cross over into snobbery there. Also: we need people doing menial jobs and they should be rewarded a lot more handsomely than those doing "bullshit jobs"*. Anyway, who says working your arse off for 40+ hours a week is what we should be doing? It's clearly invented bollocks to maintain the consumer capitalist status quo.** I made a point of saying people move up and down the income scale and that their socio-economic class at birth does not definitively determine their route through life. It does for the vast majority, however.*** I'm sure you worked very hard to get to where you've got to. Whilst I wouldn't describe myself as a capitalist, neither would I say I'm a socialist or communist so please don't pigeon-hole me as you have done. There's obviously a perfectly workable system using chunks of already-existing theories and adding plenty too; UBI for example, and smashing the theory of the 35-40 hour working week to bits. Our problem is that we have deregulated the market economy to the extent that it is now so out of control that even major financial crashes are only a minor blip for the hyper-capitalist sociopaths running the show. We shouldn't accept some form of capitalism because "other systems don't work". We should be fighting tooth and nail to bring about a wholesale change in mentality and global direction. The trouble is we can't because we're all so so busy working so we don't die in a ditch. Oh, and so we can buy stuff; replacing actual human feelings of happiness and contentedness with the temporary buzz of getting a new thing. * www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-review** www.ft.com/content/46ae5d52-8f80-11e5-a549-b89a1dfede9b*** eprints.lse.ac.uk/82334/1/Researching%20Sociology%20%40%20LSE%20%E2%80%93%20Social%20Class%20in%20the%2021st%20Century_%20An%20Interview%20with%20Mike%20Savage.pdfFirstly, thank you for providing an articulate response. Bathstoke has decided to post nothing instead of actually addressing the points now, so it's good to have a reasoned discussion with someone who is willing. At the end of the day, I enjoy these kind of debates because who knows what is right eh? We only know how bad 'crony capitalism' is because we've lived under it; there is an element of hypothesising here, which is understandable Let me pick at a few things you posted: I totally agree that our goals in life should be happiness and fulfilment; however, one persons happiness is another persons misery, and another persons fulfilment will not necessarily satisfy someone else. What you are suggesting in effect, is that everyone should be forced to have the same desires in life. Also, while I agree that capitalism works against the notion of a 'healthy' planet (seeing as we are depleting the resources we have available to further materialism), it is once again human greed that is accelerating the destruction of our fragile existence. Why is it, that in an era of modern efficient cars, people continue to purchase powerful inefficient vehicles that are actually completely unnecessary and inappropriate. It all goes back to human nature and the power of self absorbed materialistic personalities. Education in this country is shit, but is that the failing of capitalism or the government? Most schools are state run entities and it is up to the government to ensure our next generation are given the best education possible. Successive governments have utterly ruined our education system with red tape and eroded the few benefits that were afforded to teachers (good pensions etc). I remember it being a long standing joke at college "worst case scenario, you can always become a teacher" and this was before the big pension disputes etc. Now, we have underpaid and under-qualified teachers in poorly funded schools...... No wonder our youngsters are suffering. Winding back a bit though, I went to a dreadful school in Stoke that was in special measures at the time; so did my friends who I mentioned earlier. You could say a lot schools in Stoke are like that, and yet despite all these 'barriers', we did okay and others continue to make good in life... why? If we want to go next level here, I was literally excluded from education, let alone a decent one. I don't usually talk about this, but I was kicked out of high school in Year 11 for fighting. I was allowed to take my exams (which I now realise was simply a great way of them earning some money off my back) but I was also told that I was not welcome to attend Sixth Form and to basically get fucked. At that point, I could have taken it as a green light to be a total prick. Instead, I enrolled at Newcastle College. I worked a number of jobs while at college to fund things like travel and just general living costs. I studied hard and subsequently was able to get into a University... I funded that using a student loan (which I continue to pay) but mostly by working in a pub. I graduated, got a job, and years later I'm where I am today. So that brings me onto your paragraph about my comments on 'life choices' being appalling.... Why are they appalling? I am not trying to be snobby, but why would I sugar coat something that is a fact? There is no correct answer to life but you can evaluate it on a decision-by-decision basis. The girl I mentioned in my previous post came from an affluent background. Her older sisters (also very intelligent) have gone on to be successful. She had certain opportunities presented on a plate that I had to work for. She had an opportunity to go to a University herself (a better one than me). She was given decisions to make, and decided to marry young, have a few kids without a sustainable form of income and piss off education for homemaking. Those decisions were hers. It's a terrible shame that 10 years on, she finds herself on the metaphorical scrapheap, but I also find it difficult to have truck loads of sympathy for her. Is it fair that she is at home with her mum? Absolutely not and I have no issue with the fact she claimed benefits as a stay-at-home mum while I worked hard and paid tax, but I do have an issue with the fact that 10 or so years on, you effectively want me to be penalised because she has found herself in an absolute shit sandwich. It's almost like you are suggesting that we need a form of affirmative action? Please tell me that is not the case. Also a very good question, who says working your arse for 40 hours a week is what we should be doing? How would implementing communism/socialism address this issue? Are we going to do 20 or maybe 10 hours a week? Sign me up tomorrow..... except we won't be doing 20 hours a week/ The average working week in the Soviet Union was somewhere between 60 and 70 hours a week. Most males worked 10-12 hours a day pre-revolution: "How vanderful it voz in Motta Rosha" eh? I just want to point out, that I never said "bullshit jobs". There's no such thing as bullshit jobs, just jobs, but if that is what you refer to them, then I worked plenty of 'bullshit jobs' in my early days, so I have absolutely no reason to be snobby. My younger self was seasoned veteran of those particular roles, so I agree from experience that people in those jobs are not paid fairly. That is because government has allowed capitalism to become what is it today: Zero hour contracts, piss poor wages and disposability. People in those roles are generally seen as disposable. If you complain about your wage being poor, well you can fuck off and they can replace you with someone else. Had the government actually introduced a Universal Basic Income, like you suggested, then this wouldn't be an issue.... but then it's crony capitalism, isn't it? Apologies for pigeon-holing you; reading back, it does come across that way. I am in no doubt, that most people will take away from this thread that I am hard right or conservative, despite the fact I continue to vote labour. I openly admit that my loyalty to labour is wavering, but I am still a strong believer in the social welfare system and most of what Labour stands for. I will never vote Conservative, so it's Lab or nobody. I agree that a mix of all systems would obviously be the perfect solution.... whether it happens though. I'm saying plenty, you're just not listening 👂🏻
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 7, 2018 22:00:31 GMT
I'm saying plenty, you're just not listening 👂🏻 Of course I listen, but we're having a debate, so it's back and forth. If everyone changed their political standpoint off the back of your opinions alone??? Well, you'd be the best politician in England for one Have a good weekend anyway. Plenty of reasons to be happy! For one, Stoke won't lose this weekend I promise!!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 7, 2018 23:17:55 GMT
Capitalism
|
|
|
Post by prettything on Sept 8, 2018 3:26:28 GMT
I think most socialist leaning supporters, don’t want a 100 percent socialist society. I believe they probably want a capitalist society with a socialist under currant.
Things like the NHS, police, education. Both sides would probably agree upon, systems which are.free and accessible for all.
During the last few years we’ve seen capitalism sneak into our prison service, health service, water, gas, even our transport network.
We can all probably agree, this hasn’t been to our benefit.
It’s about reapportioning the balance. We don’t want to be like the US, where people are living on the streets, where there is non existent mental health care, and the gap between rich and poor is noticeably prevelent .
We don’t want to be Venezuela either.
We can achieve balance.
This left vs right thing is a load of horse shit.
We work better with both .
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 8, 2018 6:30:23 GMT
I think most socialist leaning supporters, don’t want a 100 percent socialist society. I believe they probably want a capitalist society with a socialist under currant. Things like the NHS, police, education. Both sides would probably agree upon, systems which are.free and accessible for all. During the last few years we’ve seen capitalism sneak into our prison service, health service, water, gas, even our transport network. We can all probably agree, this hasn’t been to our benefit. It’s about reapportioning the balance. We don’t want to be like the US, where people are living on the streets, where there is non existent mental health care, and the gap between rich and poor is noticeably prevelent . We don’t want to be Venezuela either. We can achieve balance. This left vs right thing is a load of horse shit. We work better with both . Indeed. The Third Way. As espoused by Tony Blair. Such a shame his government was consumed by hubris - Blair with his Evangelical mission to rid the world of Sadam Hussein and his sidekick Brown believing, Canute like, that he was able to control markets as if it was the sea meaning he could embark on a mission that would result in astronomic levels of debt. Anyway - I hope wiser heads than mine can figure out how to do this. Laissez-faire capitalism is truly poisonous. The only thing worse (and is much, much worse) is socialism (and all it's phases including communism). Of course what we have today isn't laissez-faire capitalism - although at times it can seem (or be presented) as such. Checks and balances do exist. But they must be strengthened. Thankfully socialism is effectively dead - despite the efforts of Corbyn and Momentum to breath life back into a fundamentally flawed idea.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 8, 2018 9:14:22 GMT
Jacked up interest rates to close to 15%..which makes the pound stronger on the international currency markets. This means exports become more expensive and imports become cheaper. Industries that export goods (like the pottery industry) have huge drops in sales that lead to redundancies and eventual liquidation. In 1979 over 50,000 people were employed in the pottery industry (when Thatcher was elected)in Stoke on Trent. By 1980 (when she left) roughly 8,000. That not only decimated the pottery industry but the local economy because people who'd lost their jobs had fuck all to spend. Oh almost forgot, Thatcher closed the entire mining industry down, 10,000 mining jobs were lost in Stoke on Trent. No doubt whatsoever that a lot of these industries were in decline and needed massive investment to improve productivity but the people who suffered the most during the 1980s were the people of Stoke on Trent employed (sic) in these industries, and that was a direct result of Thatchers Monetarist/Supply Side Economic Policies..in particular from 1983 to 1987.. No doubt you'll say that it was inevitable given the economic circumstances leading up to 1979 and I would agree with that but there is no doubt that the economy of Stoke on Trent was decimated during the 1980s How about the closure of Shelton iron and steel , 10,000 jobs lost . Closed by a labour government . The decimation of the industrial base in stoke was disastrous but there were many factors 15% interest rates were crippling for everybody in the country . You are right in saying the productivity in the pits was in decline. Pit closures were usually recommended to the the trade minister by the coal board for this reason . Harold wilsons labour government closed more than double the amount of pits during his time . If I remember the majority of the pits in stoke closed years after thatcher left office . The last one during blairs government . To constantly blame her for all of today's problems is nonsense. She left office nearly 30 years ago . I'm not blaming Thatcher for all of today's problems. Where on earth have I said that? I'm not even saying that what happened wasn't Historically inevitable. Merely pointing out the effects of the economic policies from 1979 to 1987 on Stoke on Trent. The important words being Historical & inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2018 9:25:04 GMT
I'm not blaming Thatcher for all of today's problems. Where on earth have I said that? I'm not even saying that what happened wasn't Historically inevitable. Merely pointing out the effects of the economic policies from 1979 to 1987 on Stoke on Trent. The important words being Historical & inevitable. Ok mate fair enough , I just get very frustrated when people don't recognise the wider context. Our economic decline started in the 60s for various reasons . When thatcher was elected the shit had already hit the fan . I'm not saying she couldn't have done more for the communities affected , in fact her biggest failing imo was a lack of regeneration planning . But she stopped the rot and did all the dirty work for 3 term Blair who as I've said repealed none of her union reforms
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 8, 2018 12:00:08 GMT
I'm not blaming Thatcher for all of today's problems. Where on earth have I said that? I'm not even saying that what happened wasn't Historically inevitable. Merely pointing out the effects of the economic policies from 1979 to 1987 on Stoke on Trent. The important words being Historical & inevitable. Ok mate fair enough , I just get very frustrated when people don't recognise the wider context. Our economic decline started in the 60s for various reasons . When thatcher was elected the shit had already hit the fan . I'm not saying she couldn't have done more for the communities affected , in fact her biggest failing imo was a lack of regeneration planning . But she stopped the rot and did all the dirty work for 3 term Blair who as I've said repealed none of her union reforms To be fair Dennis Healey did go cap in hand to the IMF in 1977 and the result was that spending was slashed and 2 million people ended up on the dole..and that was under Labour. Looking back on things Mrs Thatcher didn't really have many options and simply accelerated Britains Economic decline. Huge amounts of North sea oil tax revenue ended up being used to finance the resulting unemployment, rather than as you say, regeneration. But you could argue that she left the economy in much better shape in 1980 than when she inherited it in 1979. I think she would have put up more of a fight in 1992 over Maastricht than John Major but that's another issue mate.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2018 13:35:48 GMT
Ok mate fair enough , I just get very frustrated when people don't recognise the wider context. Our economic decline started in the 60s for various reasons . When thatcher was elected the shit had already hit the fan . I'm not saying she couldn't have done more for the communities affected , in fact her biggest failing imo was a lack of regeneration planning . But she stopped the rot and did all the dirty work for 3 term Blair who as I've said repealed none of her union reforms To be fair Dennis Healey did go cap in hand to the IMF in 1977 and the result was that spending was slashed and 2 million people ended up on the dole..and that was under Labour. Looking back on things Mrs Thatcher didn't really have many options and simply accelerated Britains Economic decline. Huge amounts of North sea oil tax revenue ended up being used to finance the resulting unemployment, rather than as you say, regeneration. But you could argue that she left the economy in much better shape in 1980 than when she inherited it in 1979. I think she would have put up more of a fight in 1992 over Maastricht than John Major but that's another issue mate. Major was part of a declining regime and quite rightly put the conservatives in opposition for 3 terms . Major also privatised the rail networks , something thatcher refused to do but constantly gets blamed for . She also allowed the North Sea oil revenues to facilitate tax cuts . I would have thought this windfall revenue was invested for the benefit of the nation as Norway did with their weath fund or building a new generation of powere stations . Really nobody had the resolve to bat back at Europe as thatcher did .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 13:54:26 GMT
I'm not blaming Thatcher for all of today's problems. Where on earth have I said that? I'm not even saying that what happened wasn't Historically inevitable. Merely pointing out the effects of the economic policies from 1979 to 1987 on Stoke on Trent. The important words being Historical & inevitable. Ok mate fair enough , I just get very frustrated when people don't recognise the wider context. Our economic decline started in the 60s for various reasons . When thatcher was elected the shit had already hit the fan . I'm not saying she couldn't have done more for the communities affected , in fact her biggest failing imo was a lack of regeneration planning . But she stopped the rot and did all the dirty work for 3 term Blair who as I've said repealed none of her union reforms Pits had been in decline since the end of ww1 Its in that link I put up the other day Even the British coal board itself knew it was coming to an end, regardless of maggie
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2018 14:43:17 GMT
Ok mate fair enough , I just get very frustrated when people don't recognise the wider context. Our economic decline started in the 60s for various reasons . When thatcher was elected the shit had already hit the fan . I'm not saying she couldn't have done more for the communities affected , in fact her biggest failing imo was a lack of regeneration planning . But she stopped the rot and did all the dirty work for 3 term Blair who as I've said repealed none of her union reforms Pits had been in decline since the end of ww1 Its in that link I put up the other day Even the British coal board itself knew it was coming to an end, regardless of maggie I think Maggie only closed wollstanton didn't she and that was failing rapidly , I may be wrong so don't shoot me
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 16:52:51 GMT
Pits had been in decline since the end of ww1 Its in that link I put up the other day Even the British coal board itself knew it was coming to an end, regardless of maggie I think Maggie only closed wollstanton didn't she and that was failing rapidly , I may be wrong so don't shoot me She also stole my daughter's milk from out of her hands don't you know
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 8, 2018 17:38:14 GMT
I think Maggie only closed wollstanton didn't she and that was failing rapidly , I may be wrong so don't shoot me She also stole my daughter's milk from out of her hands don't you know Yeah but you'd nicked it anyway Mary.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 8, 2018 18:18:29 GMT
She also stole my daughter's milk from out of her hands don't you know Yeah but you'd nicked it anyway Mary. Yeah, Mary the milk monitor lizard 🥛🦎
|
|
|
Post by Rick Grimes on Sept 12, 2018 7:55:22 GMT
Socialism requires a lot of government intervention and having a big bloated government is a bad idea in my opinion. Many aspects of the government are simply incompetent and wasteful.
At the moment we’re not even getting the basics like healthcare and policing right. It seems madness to me that people think the solution is to hand over further control to the government.
Minimum government intervention is what I would like to see. There are a few givens that government needs to be in charge of, , education, healthcare, law and order, the military and basic infrastructure like roads etc.
|
|