| A Guardian read for you all! 07:46 - Nov 18 with 9650 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Contains some good points and one liners....
'If you are the Democrats and all you have to counter this powerful vision is a lot of nice values and dancing “joy” but no material proposal to radically change people’s lives, you haven’t even brought a knife to a gunfight – you’ve brought Oprah Winfrey.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/18/donald-trump-victory-liber
'But the truth is that, all over the world, the old order is gone and the new one is bewildering. People feel trapped and want a sense of release, a promise of a dramatically different future, or just a future. Even if that sense of freedom comes vicariously from an autocrat who has flexed and snapped the chains of the system. And they want to feel as if they are part of something bigger and stronger as they get lonelier and weaker and their worlds fracture and atomise by the day.' |  |
| |  |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 09:56 - Nov 19 with 1266 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 08:41 - Nov 19 by NthQldITFC |
'Wealth actually is' health and happiness for everybody and a stable, living, sustainable natural environment, NOT absurd piles of meaningless money for some, poverty for others and a dying planet.
(Not talking about farmers here, just the childish, over-heated, suicidal capitalist wet dream.) |
I think the problem is the scale of the business. I think we were much better off as a society when we had more small businesses employing local people. 10 small local shops each owned by a local businessman and employing people that they know well by name rather a Tescos paying minimum wage to basically interchangeable employees to provide results to head office.
I think the best model is something like Cadbury and Rowntrees where the employees are also looked after and not just used as resources.
We have to have a system that rewards effort and hard work, but also intervenes and breaks up companies like Google that become to powerful an influential over politics, culture, and business.
Now with globalism we outsource our conscience and accept horrific standards in countries like China either ignorantly or with the thought out of sight out of mind. I'm all for tariffs to make slave labour and labour with horrible standards for the workers uncompetitive. |  | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 10:38 - Nov 19 with 1222 views | WeWereZombies |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 09:33 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
Disagree with what you like. I realize that it comes across that I have fired off a lot of comments when I posted after everyone went to bed. I did read some of the article, but I admit I couldn't take reading the whole thing. Frankly the discussion here and the intelligence shown in this forum is much more worthy of my time than that article.
The entire premise of the article is off. It is stating that Trump being elected signals that authoritarianism has taken over. It's just nonsense and lies being spouted by the people who feel like their power is fading.
You have to separate what Trump says to what he actually does. He says some stuff that anyone would agree is authoritarian like saying that Hillary should be locked up (but he didn't pursue that). Don't get me wrong, it is bad that he even said that and it is bad when the Democrats use lawfare too.
The main tenets of Trumpism appear to be:
support of the first amendment and support of the second amendment. That is the opposite of authoritarian;
adherence to the Constitution. All Trump picks for the Supreme Court are constitutionalists. Roe vs Wade was overturned because it was unconstitutional, not because they want to control women;
States' rights including allowing States to decide for themselves on issues like abortion, and support of the concept of reducing federal bureaucracy and red tape. The extent that they are doing this might be a mistake, but it just isn't authoritarian; and
ending US involvement in foreign wars. Again, this is the opposite of authoritarian.
Concerning China, I understand why our leaders fell into the trap. When I was a child, I used to believe in our way of life being evidently better because of the potential for freedom to create wealth and fulfillment, but now I realized that we don't have a culture or values. I might not like a lot of things about the CCP, but I have to admire how clear of a sense of self and purpose they have as a people. British barely know what their culture is anymore and we are afraid to be proud of our culture. My opinion on culture is that your culture either is the best it can be for you and your people, or it needs to be changed. |
I worry about you, you say that you couldn't finish the Guardian article but it was not that long. And yet you choose to post at length and in terms that are often contradict themselves.
Yes, this world is a complex place but if you approach issues with your mind made up about who is the good guy (even if he will not do what he says he is going to do, which somewhat undermines trust) and who are the bad guys (but then suggest that the use of bad capitalism in the form of excessive tariffs will undermine their communism, heck they will just trade elsewhere, there are dozens of emerging economies to soak that up.) all the time embracing what you take to be benevolent dictatorship (oligarchs just treat people well whilst they can get a service out of them, by the way) and adding in some dewey eyed nostalgia (read 'Akenfield' for a flavour of how hard life could be in Suffolk a hundred years ago, I am not keen on a return to that.) |  |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 11:20 - Nov 19 with 1170 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 10:38 - Nov 19 by WeWereZombies |
I worry about you, you say that you couldn't finish the Guardian article but it was not that long. And yet you choose to post at length and in terms that are often contradict themselves.
Yes, this world is a complex place but if you approach issues with your mind made up about who is the good guy (even if he will not do what he says he is going to do, which somewhat undermines trust) and who are the bad guys (but then suggest that the use of bad capitalism in the form of excessive tariffs will undermine their communism, heck they will just trade elsewhere, there are dozens of emerging economies to soak that up.) all the time embracing what you take to be benevolent dictatorship (oligarchs just treat people well whilst they can get a service out of them, by the way) and adding in some dewey eyed nostalgia (read 'Akenfield' for a flavour of how hard life could be in Suffolk a hundred years ago, I am not keen on a return to that.) |
The Guardian is a rag. Just like the mirror or the Mail, even the Telegraph and the Times are full of rubbish and trying to rage bait you these days. The BBC news website can be thrown in with these too. They are all interested in selective use of facts to prove their own point of view. Why read an article with a stupid premise to start with?
I'm open minded, but I'm also old enough to know that certain things are just true no matter how modern schools of thought want to position certain ideas. How we know some is true is that an idea doesn't contradict itself. How we test it is put the idea out there and see if people can poke a hole in the argument and point out a contradiction. So if you see one in what I say, please point it out.
It's not that I think Trump is a good, guy, he almost certainly is not. People on here seem to think I want to defend Trump, I'm not interested in that at all. Apply your point "if you approach issues with your mind made up about who is the good guy" and switch out god with bad and most people just have their emotional response to Trump. If you look at the results of what he has done in the past and the cabinet that he is putting in place, where can you point to authoritarianism. The Guardian argument of taking it as read as Trump and Trumpism being authoritarianism is just an appeal to authority.
I get the arguments for Trump and Trumpism being dangerous and destructive, but I think more likely on balance it will be positive and constructive. I think centralized power is one of the worst ideas man has ever come with and the limiting of powers in the constitution was the great wisdom of the US founders that the Democrats think is an obstacle because somehow they just know better.
To directly engage with the more substantive points you made in the second part of your post, it is interesting that you use the subjective term "excessive tariffs" as an example of bad capitalism. The whole point of the tariffs is how they are used. I find the idea of tariffs as an alternative to high income taxes to be interesting. I am not sure how that would work out in practice. Even China has finite capacity for trade. If they had better options than trading with the West they would be taking advantage of them. I certainly agree with your sentiment that we should be careful about pushing that trade with China away, but we certainly need tariffs against China. The whole concept of the EU is protectionist, so it's not as if tariffs don't exist and only actively hostile countries have tariffs against the US.
My problem with China is that they are actively hostile towards us, yet we are enriching them, the same is true of Russia. As you say, there are plenty of emerging economies with much less hostile leaders and we could do more trade with them and less with China.
I would definitely say that the best leader is a morally just King. You might even get a good run of good Kings, but the founders of America knew that the run will end and you need to have a system of checks and balances that should be used to restrict all leaders including Trump. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 13:23 - Nov 19 with 1129 views | WeWereZombies |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 11:20 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
The Guardian is a rag. Just like the mirror or the Mail, even the Telegraph and the Times are full of rubbish and trying to rage bait you these days. The BBC news website can be thrown in with these too. They are all interested in selective use of facts to prove their own point of view. Why read an article with a stupid premise to start with?
I'm open minded, but I'm also old enough to know that certain things are just true no matter how modern schools of thought want to position certain ideas. How we know some is true is that an idea doesn't contradict itself. How we test it is put the idea out there and see if people can poke a hole in the argument and point out a contradiction. So if you see one in what I say, please point it out.
It's not that I think Trump is a good, guy, he almost certainly is not. People on here seem to think I want to defend Trump, I'm not interested in that at all. Apply your point "if you approach issues with your mind made up about who is the good guy" and switch out god with bad and most people just have their emotional response to Trump. If you look at the results of what he has done in the past and the cabinet that he is putting in place, where can you point to authoritarianism. The Guardian argument of taking it as read as Trump and Trumpism being authoritarianism is just an appeal to authority.
I get the arguments for Trump and Trumpism being dangerous and destructive, but I think more likely on balance it will be positive and constructive. I think centralized power is one of the worst ideas man has ever come with and the limiting of powers in the constitution was the great wisdom of the US founders that the Democrats think is an obstacle because somehow they just know better.
To directly engage with the more substantive points you made in the second part of your post, it is interesting that you use the subjective term "excessive tariffs" as an example of bad capitalism. The whole point of the tariffs is how they are used. I find the idea of tariffs as an alternative to high income taxes to be interesting. I am not sure how that would work out in practice. Even China has finite capacity for trade. If they had better options than trading with the West they would be taking advantage of them. I certainly agree with your sentiment that we should be careful about pushing that trade with China away, but we certainly need tariffs against China. The whole concept of the EU is protectionist, so it's not as if tariffs don't exist and only actively hostile countries have tariffs against the US.
My problem with China is that they are actively hostile towards us, yet we are enriching them, the same is true of Russia. As you say, there are plenty of emerging economies with much less hostile leaders and we could do more trade with them and less with China.
I would definitely say that the best leader is a morally just King. You might even get a good run of good Kings, but the founders of America knew that the run will end and you need to have a system of checks and balances that should be used to restrict all leaders including Trump. |
With the drift of British newspaper into foreign ownership I have found a tolerance of the verbosity of The Guardian easier, and I think they have reigned it in a little as well. The idea that the newspaper is a rag in the manner in which The Sun, for example, masquerades as a newspaper is viewpoint that I find lacking in perspective. Similarly, the BBC may no longer be dedicated to a Reithian 'nation speaking peace unto nations' ethos but by comparison to other media does contain a great deal of valuable content (I am currently catching up on 'Unspun World' with John Simpson as an antidote to the forecast demise of HARDtalk, which will be much missed if it happens.) We need this balanced, peer reviewed and open to criticism media in what appears to be a threatening future.
On my China argument, I was advancing the view that China does not necessarily need the United States and Europe as markets when much of Asia, Africa and South America is expanding its consumer base, not that we have much in the way of alternatives if we block off supply from China (you think we can buy from Indonesia instead, check out who has control of the manufacturing. Let's try Kenya the...oh. Bolivia...ah, and so on, Belt and Road may not be a totality but it is quite encompassing, I am always surprised at where I find the evidence of investment and supply when I travel.)
On the subject of benevolent monarchs, I think we got to the bottom of that one with James II and the Italian city states running out of steam (despite Machiavelli's best attempts at logical advice.) The subsequent empires that grew and fell just built up the conditions for Europe to tear itself apart (twice) in the last century, and this may be a fate that awaits the United States if the Mid~West and the coasts maintain the drift that produces such acrimony | |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 15:16 - Nov 19 with 1117 views | Xatticus |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 23:46 - Nov 18 by Europablue |
Left-wing redistributive alternatives disincentivize wealth creation and innovation.
These alternatives don't even consider what wealth actually is. Just look at the farmers and inheritance tax. If a farmer has land worth 2 million pounds and makes a living of 60K a year, there is no way for them to pay off the inheritance tax without killing their income. |
This is crap.
Wealth creation isn't inherently good. One could easily argue otherwise. Hedge fund managers, for example, are a massive burden to the economy. They take a disproportionately large slice of the economic pie without contributing to the size of the pie. They very much look like they are contributing to the economy, but they aren't. They are simply exploiting inflation to redistribute wealth. It is a parasitic relationship. This is true of any endeavor that exists for the purposes of generating wealth without providing goods or services, of which there are many.
Since when does the 'incentive' dynamic stop people that have more from wanting even more? And why does it only seem to apply to the wealthiest among us? I've had to sit through lectures where Econ instructors explained why a minimum wage disincentivizes work. It's BS.
What makes for a healthy economy is when the population has the means to exercise their demand through spending. It creates a fertile environment in which businesses can prosper.
The problem with this model is that it is antithetical to the purposes of any profit-seeking organization. Every business is opposed to competition. Competition makes it more difficult for them to accomplish the purpose for which they exist: profit. A concentration of wealth is an indication of an unhealthy system. In economic theory, profit is inefficiency.
An unhealthy economy caters to a small segment of the population that has consolidated the spending power and disenfranchises those that have no spending power. This is anti-democratic. It's great for helping the rich get richer, it isn't good for the economy.
Redistribution of wealth isn't optional. It's ubiquitous and constant. The question is to what extent a government should intervene for the sake of the country. If the government doesn't intervene and private interests are unfettered, the economy will inevitably collapse. This is why laissez-faire economics nearly led to the collapse of the economy in the United States (and globally). What brought the United States out of the depression? The regulation of the banking industry and the creation of the welfare state. As it turns out, workers are more productive when they aren't homeless and starving. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:14 - Nov 19 with 1096 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 15:16 - Nov 19 by Xatticus |
This is crap.
Wealth creation isn't inherently good. One could easily argue otherwise. Hedge fund managers, for example, are a massive burden to the economy. They take a disproportionately large slice of the economic pie without contributing to the size of the pie. They very much look like they are contributing to the economy, but they aren't. They are simply exploiting inflation to redistribute wealth. It is a parasitic relationship. This is true of any endeavor that exists for the purposes of generating wealth without providing goods or services, of which there are many.
Since when does the 'incentive' dynamic stop people that have more from wanting even more? And why does it only seem to apply to the wealthiest among us? I've had to sit through lectures where Econ instructors explained why a minimum wage disincentivizes work. It's BS.
What makes for a healthy economy is when the population has the means to exercise their demand through spending. It creates a fertile environment in which businesses can prosper.
The problem with this model is that it is antithetical to the purposes of any profit-seeking organization. Every business is opposed to competition. Competition makes it more difficult for them to accomplish the purpose for which they exist: profit. A concentration of wealth is an indication of an unhealthy system. In economic theory, profit is inefficiency.
An unhealthy economy caters to a small segment of the population that has consolidated the spending power and disenfranchises those that have no spending power. This is anti-democratic. It's great for helping the rich get richer, it isn't good for the economy.
Redistribution of wealth isn't optional. It's ubiquitous and constant. The question is to what extent a government should intervene for the sake of the country. If the government doesn't intervene and private interests are unfettered, the economy will inevitably collapse. This is why laissez-faire economics nearly led to the collapse of the economy in the United States (and globally). What brought the United States out of the depression? The regulation of the banking industry and the creation of the welfare state. As it turns out, workers are more productive when they aren't homeless and starving. |
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Do you think you are disagreeing with me somewhere? I absolutely agree on the point about hedge fund managers. Communism goes against human nature and therefore trying to implement it is evil. It is in our nature to strive for rewards. I don't believe that you would dispute that. It it also human nature for a repressed group to rise up, often violently against the ruling class, so aside from the moral argument, there is a necessity from the point of view of physical safety for the ruling class to redistribute wealth to some extent. So I would imagine that, like most reasonable people we are debating to which end of the scale redistribution should be.
You didn't engage in my point of the farmers, who are the opposite of parasitic, but Marxist theory dictates that farmers are exploiting the land and exploiting labour.
It is a great act of vandalism and misdirected indignation to destroy the viability of farming in the UK. People in the city look down on people in the country, and the middle class Labour-supporting city-dwelling intellectuals will probably be happy to gut the farming industry and also meet their net zero targets.
What do you make of inheritance tax? Personally, I feel that it is immoral to tax someone so many times. I think the amount should be set and taken when it is earned. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:33 - Nov 19 with 1086 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 13:23 - Nov 19 by WeWereZombies |
With the drift of British newspaper into foreign ownership I have found a tolerance of the verbosity of The Guardian easier, and I think they have reigned it in a little as well. The idea that the newspaper is a rag in the manner in which The Sun, for example, masquerades as a newspaper is viewpoint that I find lacking in perspective. Similarly, the BBC may no longer be dedicated to a Reithian 'nation speaking peace unto nations' ethos but by comparison to other media does contain a great deal of valuable content (I am currently catching up on 'Unspun World' with John Simpson as an antidote to the forecast demise of HARDtalk, which will be much missed if it happens.) We need this balanced, peer reviewed and open to criticism media in what appears to be a threatening future.
On my China argument, I was advancing the view that China does not necessarily need the United States and Europe as markets when much of Asia, Africa and South America is expanding its consumer base, not that we have much in the way of alternatives if we block off supply from China (you think we can buy from Indonesia instead, check out who has control of the manufacturing. Let's try Kenya the...oh. Bolivia...ah, and so on, Belt and Road may not be a totality but it is quite encompassing, I am always surprised at where I find the evidence of investment and supply when I travel.)
On the subject of benevolent monarchs, I think we got to the bottom of that one with James II and the Italian city states running out of steam (despite Machiavelli's best attempts at logical advice.) The subsequent empires that grew and fell just built up the conditions for Europe to tear itself apart (twice) in the last century, and this may be a fate that awaits the United States if the Mid~West and the coasts maintain the drift that produces such acrimony |
I think we all forget what newspapers are and have always been unless some people never understood what they are in the first place. They are one of two things, or a mixture of both. They are either a tool of influence (they even endorse political candidates), or a way of making money. Either way they are incredibly biased. The Guardian is no more trustworthy than the Telegraph or the Times. It is a bit hyperbolic to call them rags, because for sure the Sun is the dictionary definition. This thing like about the Sun is that no one thinks that it is a respectable source of unbiased news.
I really love the idea of the BBC. It is supposed to be a shared resource that is supposed to have no bias and represent the country. It is incredibly unrepresentative of the country, but in no way more than how far left the people who work there are. As much as love the idea of the BBC from my youth, I can't support a forced funding of a propaganda arm of the left. It is a shame. The country would be much better for hearing a wide range of views on subjects and understand the breadth of the people who inhabit our isles.
I think we have well and truly fallen into China's trap and they have encircled us. There is very little opportunity to reverse that. Beijing thinks in centuries, whereas we think in election cycles.
I think there are enough reasonable people in the US that a shift of the Overton window back to where people like me were comfortable in the centre (rather than the extremism that seems to be in effect now) will allow America to stay together, but it will not work if the metropolitan elites continue to look down on less educated (but more in touch with the real world) people outside of the cities. It is a concern that the internet has brought together isolated minorities and that the internet has also settled into silos rather than the ideal of the town square that we all share and that the BBC was aiming to be. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:35 - Nov 19 with 1083 views | Blueschev |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:33 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
I think we all forget what newspapers are and have always been unless some people never understood what they are in the first place. They are one of two things, or a mixture of both. They are either a tool of influence (they even endorse political candidates), or a way of making money. Either way they are incredibly biased. The Guardian is no more trustworthy than the Telegraph or the Times. It is a bit hyperbolic to call them rags, because for sure the Sun is the dictionary definition. This thing like about the Sun is that no one thinks that it is a respectable source of unbiased news.
I really love the idea of the BBC. It is supposed to be a shared resource that is supposed to have no bias and represent the country. It is incredibly unrepresentative of the country, but in no way more than how far left the people who work there are. As much as love the idea of the BBC from my youth, I can't support a forced funding of a propaganda arm of the left. It is a shame. The country would be much better for hearing a wide range of views on subjects and understand the breadth of the people who inhabit our isles.
I think we have well and truly fallen into China's trap and they have encircled us. There is very little opportunity to reverse that. Beijing thinks in centuries, whereas we think in election cycles.
I think there are enough reasonable people in the US that a shift of the Overton window back to where people like me were comfortable in the centre (rather than the extremism that seems to be in effect now) will allow America to stay together, but it will not work if the metropolitan elites continue to look down on less educated (but more in touch with the real world) people outside of the cities. It is a concern that the internet has brought together isolated minorities and that the internet has also settled into silos rather than the ideal of the town square that we all share and that the BBC was aiming to be. |
How do you find the time to type so much with each reply? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:48 - Nov 19 with 1071 views | CoachRob |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 15:16 - Nov 19 by Xatticus |
This is crap.
Wealth creation isn't inherently good. One could easily argue otherwise. Hedge fund managers, for example, are a massive burden to the economy. They take a disproportionately large slice of the economic pie without contributing to the size of the pie. They very much look like they are contributing to the economy, but they aren't. They are simply exploiting inflation to redistribute wealth. It is a parasitic relationship. This is true of any endeavor that exists for the purposes of generating wealth without providing goods or services, of which there are many.
Since when does the 'incentive' dynamic stop people that have more from wanting even more? And why does it only seem to apply to the wealthiest among us? I've had to sit through lectures where Econ instructors explained why a minimum wage disincentivizes work. It's BS.
What makes for a healthy economy is when the population has the means to exercise their demand through spending. It creates a fertile environment in which businesses can prosper.
The problem with this model is that it is antithetical to the purposes of any profit-seeking organization. Every business is opposed to competition. Competition makes it more difficult for them to accomplish the purpose for which they exist: profit. A concentration of wealth is an indication of an unhealthy system. In economic theory, profit is inefficiency.
An unhealthy economy caters to a small segment of the population that has consolidated the spending power and disenfranchises those that have no spending power. This is anti-democratic. It's great for helping the rich get richer, it isn't good for the economy.
Redistribution of wealth isn't optional. It's ubiquitous and constant. The question is to what extent a government should intervene for the sake of the country. If the government doesn't intervene and private interests are unfettered, the economy will inevitably collapse. This is why laissez-faire economics nearly led to the collapse of the economy in the United States (and globally). What brought the United States out of the depression? The regulation of the banking industry and the creation of the welfare state. As it turns out, workers are more productive when they aren't homeless and starving. |
Nice post.
Did you sit through standard Neoclassical lectures or did your course have a pluralist approach?
As you eloquently describe, Neoclassical economics is a house of cards, as soon as you start questioning the basic assumptions the whole thing comes apart. The Neoclassicals have been become something of a punchbag at conferences discussing climate change as their work on the subject is so unscientific and is the go to for climate change deniers. |  | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 17:18 - Nov 19 with 1051 views | WeWereZombies |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:33 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
I think we all forget what newspapers are and have always been unless some people never understood what they are in the first place. They are one of two things, or a mixture of both. They are either a tool of influence (they even endorse political candidates), or a way of making money. Either way they are incredibly biased. The Guardian is no more trustworthy than the Telegraph or the Times. It is a bit hyperbolic to call them rags, because for sure the Sun is the dictionary definition. This thing like about the Sun is that no one thinks that it is a respectable source of unbiased news.
I really love the idea of the BBC. It is supposed to be a shared resource that is supposed to have no bias and represent the country. It is incredibly unrepresentative of the country, but in no way more than how far left the people who work there are. As much as love the idea of the BBC from my youth, I can't support a forced funding of a propaganda arm of the left. It is a shame. The country would be much better for hearing a wide range of views on subjects and understand the breadth of the people who inhabit our isles.
I think we have well and truly fallen into China's trap and they have encircled us. There is very little opportunity to reverse that. Beijing thinks in centuries, whereas we think in election cycles.
I think there are enough reasonable people in the US that a shift of the Overton window back to where people like me were comfortable in the centre (rather than the extremism that seems to be in effect now) will allow America to stay together, but it will not work if the metropolitan elites continue to look down on less educated (but more in touch with the real world) people outside of the cities. It is a concern that the internet has brought together isolated minorities and that the internet has also settled into silos rather than the ideal of the town square that we all share and that the BBC was aiming to be. |
Well the idea that the BBC is somehow left wing is very old hat now, and always was nothing but a stick to poke Auntie with the moment she dared to tut tut at bad treatment handed out by a Conservative government.
One revealing moment in a HARDtalk interview a few years ago was when the Reverend Richard Coles mentioned in passing that it was surprising how many BBC staff grew up in vicarages, and it does explain the toady and over cautious bias in attitude that you take to be an unrepresentative cross section of the British public.
It is because the BBC takes a centre ground and safety first approach that the people of these islands and beyond watch and listen to it so much, comfortable people don't like extremism that much and don't want the boat rocked. But they do like a bit of titillation and will soak up an Essex wide boy like Alan Sugar presenting 'The Apprentice', I think that show even got franchised to the United States but I can't remember who presented it there...
When it comes to China I think the West is using that nation every bit as much as they use us, global politics works like that. They also use Russia and vice versa. How the BRICS get on in the rest of the twenty first century is going to be interesting but all things being well I won't be around for the second half.
On the subject of metropolitan 'elites', I have an inkling that not everyone in the big cities of the East and West coasts are that well off but they stay living where there are because they might do even worse by living in small town America these days. | |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 17:27 - Nov 19 with 1044 views | CoachRob |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:14 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Do you think you are disagreeing with me somewhere? I absolutely agree on the point about hedge fund managers. Communism goes against human nature and therefore trying to implement it is evil. It is in our nature to strive for rewards. I don't believe that you would dispute that. It it also human nature for a repressed group to rise up, often violently against the ruling class, so aside from the moral argument, there is a necessity from the point of view of physical safety for the ruling class to redistribute wealth to some extent. So I would imagine that, like most reasonable people we are debating to which end of the scale redistribution should be.
You didn't engage in my point of the farmers, who are the opposite of parasitic, but Marxist theory dictates that farmers are exploiting the land and exploiting labour.
It is a great act of vandalism and misdirected indignation to destroy the viability of farming in the UK. People in the city look down on people in the country, and the middle class Labour-supporting city-dwelling intellectuals will probably be happy to gut the farming industry and also meet their net zero targets.
What do you make of inheritance tax? Personally, I feel that it is immoral to tax someone so many times. I think the amount should be set and taken when it is earned. |
I work on climate change so maybe you can tell me how Labour is destroying farming by trying to reach net-zero. Labour's plan is far better than the nonsense we got under the Tories. It isn't equitable and is heavy on targets, low on funding, but it is better than doing what the previous lot did.
Farming needs to be reformed, many farmers have struggled with heavy winter precipitation and under our CMIP5 modelling this is set to get much worse in the coming decades. Food security is very important so denying climate change is hardly the way to ensure farmers can have greater resilience. I'm sure many farmers are grateful when city-dwelling intellectuals from meteorology and hydrology are on hand to give warnings and advice on how to deal ever greater extremes from climate change.
The rest of your post is very weird, humans existed with very little growth in the economy for millennia and then we discovered fossil fuels which powers our economy today. Marx's LTV or Neoclassical utility theory are wrong as they have no thermodynamic component. Communism is just a name for a type of system, it is no more evil than any other, life itself is increasing entropy production as thus the speed of the heat death of universe. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 08:38 - Nov 20 with 955 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 17:18 - Nov 19 by WeWereZombies |
Well the idea that the BBC is somehow left wing is very old hat now, and always was nothing but a stick to poke Auntie with the moment she dared to tut tut at bad treatment handed out by a Conservative government.
One revealing moment in a HARDtalk interview a few years ago was when the Reverend Richard Coles mentioned in passing that it was surprising how many BBC staff grew up in vicarages, and it does explain the toady and over cautious bias in attitude that you take to be an unrepresentative cross section of the British public.
It is because the BBC takes a centre ground and safety first approach that the people of these islands and beyond watch and listen to it so much, comfortable people don't like extremism that much and don't want the boat rocked. But they do like a bit of titillation and will soak up an Essex wide boy like Alan Sugar presenting 'The Apprentice', I think that show even got franchised to the United States but I can't remember who presented it there...
When it comes to China I think the West is using that nation every bit as much as they use us, global politics works like that. They also use Russia and vice versa. How the BRICS get on in the rest of the twenty first century is going to be interesting but all things being well I won't be around for the second half.
On the subject of metropolitan 'elites', I have an inkling that not everyone in the big cities of the East and West coasts are that well off but they stay living where there are because they might do even worse by living in small town America these days. |
The BBC you grew up with and the BBC I grew up with was at least trying to be balanced.
It is undeniably left-wing. I really don't know what to tell you.
The following seems like a snapshot a time many yeas past "It is because the BBC takes a centre ground and safety first approach that the people of these islands and beyond watch and listen to it so much" | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 08:53 - Nov 20 with 952 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 17:27 - Nov 19 by CoachRob |
I work on climate change so maybe you can tell me how Labour is destroying farming by trying to reach net-zero. Labour's plan is far better than the nonsense we got under the Tories. It isn't equitable and is heavy on targets, low on funding, but it is better than doing what the previous lot did.
Farming needs to be reformed, many farmers have struggled with heavy winter precipitation and under our CMIP5 modelling this is set to get much worse in the coming decades. Food security is very important so denying climate change is hardly the way to ensure farmers can have greater resilience. I'm sure many farmers are grateful when city-dwelling intellectuals from meteorology and hydrology are on hand to give warnings and advice on how to deal ever greater extremes from climate change.
The rest of your post is very weird, humans existed with very little growth in the economy for millennia and then we discovered fossil fuels which powers our economy today. Marx's LTV or Neoclassical utility theory are wrong as they have no thermodynamic component. Communism is just a name for a type of system, it is no more evil than any other, life itself is increasing entropy production as thus the speed of the heat death of universe. |
A system that is set up against human nature like Communism or Fascism is evil. Advocating any system like that which has led to such death and destruction is evil.
"I work on climate change so maybe you can tell me how Labour is destroying farming by trying to reach net-zero." first you will have to tell me when I said that, otherwise you are just trying to get me to defend something that I didn't say. What I said was "It is a great act of vandalism and misdirected indignation to destroy the viability of farming in the UK." I was talking about inheritance tax, you linked it to net zero, maybe because I mentioned the phrase later. "People in the city look down on people in the country, and the middle class Labour-supporting city-dwelling intellectuals will probably be happy to gut the farming industry and also meet their net zero targets." How many times have you heard that the unintelligent people in the smaller towns and countryside of the UK are stupid for voting against the interests of the city dwellers (especially in the wake of Brexit)? If you don't see that governments tend religiously follow targets and rules regardless of whether they actually achieve the desired goals, then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention. My point wasn't really about climate change at all, it was just that farmers who being pushed out of the industry will reduce the carbon footprint in the UK and regardless of whether or not that would be harmful for British food production and provision, those in Whitehall will be happy to move towards their target.
Do you have any opinion on the point I made about inheritance tax? | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 09:13 - Nov 20 with 932 views | redrickstuhaart |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 08:38 - Nov 20 by Europablue |
The BBC you grew up with and the BBC I grew up with was at least trying to be balanced.
It is undeniably left-wing. I really don't know what to tell you.
The following seems like a snapshot a time many yeas past "It is because the BBC takes a centre ground and safety first approach that the people of these islands and beyond watch and listen to it so much" |
Isnt it odd how the left wing always accuse the BBC of right wing bias and vice versa.
Arty types tend to be left wing. As do journalists and graduates. So perhaps there is a basis to think there is some left wing inclination. However, to say that tne BBC is left wing, is absurd. They still stick pretty firmly to their principles of impartiality. Often beyond what is reasonable- giving utterly absurd views equal billing to reasoned ones. Farage has probably been on QT more often than anyone. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 11:21 - Nov 20 with 875 views | WeWereZombies |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 09:13 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Isnt it odd how the left wing always accuse the BBC of right wing bias and vice versa.
Arty types tend to be left wing. As do journalists and graduates. So perhaps there is a basis to think there is some left wing inclination. However, to say that tne BBC is left wing, is absurd. They still stick pretty firmly to their principles of impartiality. Often beyond what is reasonable- giving utterly absurd views equal billing to reasoned ones. Farage has probably been on QT more often than anyone. |
The Farage point is an interesting one but I would say it was done not necessarily to provide balance but in a click bait manner. As with Trump people will tune in just to see him make a spectacle of himself and thus push up ratings. A few years ago my advice would have been to ignore them and maybe, like the pub bore, they will go away and try their nonsense on another table but it's too late for that now and we seem to be stuck with a long cycle of damage limitation (which will probably end with a spate of natural disasters once the global temperature rise exceeds two degrees ~ and then we will be into a whole different set of damage limitations...) [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 13:15]
| |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 12:30 - Nov 20 with 830 views | leitrimblue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 08:53 - Nov 20 by Europablue |
A system that is set up against human nature like Communism or Fascism is evil. Advocating any system like that which has led to such death and destruction is evil.
"I work on climate change so maybe you can tell me how Labour is destroying farming by trying to reach net-zero." first you will have to tell me when I said that, otherwise you are just trying to get me to defend something that I didn't say. What I said was "It is a great act of vandalism and misdirected indignation to destroy the viability of farming in the UK." I was talking about inheritance tax, you linked it to net zero, maybe because I mentioned the phrase later. "People in the city look down on people in the country, and the middle class Labour-supporting city-dwelling intellectuals will probably be happy to gut the farming industry and also meet their net zero targets." How many times have you heard that the unintelligent people in the smaller towns and countryside of the UK are stupid for voting against the interests of the city dwellers (especially in the wake of Brexit)? If you don't see that governments tend religiously follow targets and rules regardless of whether they actually achieve the desired goals, then I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention. My point wasn't really about climate change at all, it was just that farmers who being pushed out of the industry will reduce the carbon footprint in the UK and regardless of whether or not that would be harmful for British food production and provision, those in Whitehall will be happy to move towards their target.
Do you have any opinion on the point I made about inheritance tax? |
Can you explain how communism is a 'system set up against human nature' in the context of either modern hunter gatherer groups or our own pre neolithic societies?
And how does the idea of each and every member of a tribe/society having equal access to all the resources available in that society appear evil to you? |  | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 12:32 - Nov 20 with 828 views | redrickstuhaart |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 12:30 - Nov 20 by leitrimblue |
Can you explain how communism is a 'system set up against human nature' in the context of either modern hunter gatherer groups or our own pre neolithic societies?
And how does the idea of each and every member of a tribe/society having equal access to all the resources available in that society appear evil to you? |
Evil is a ridiculous emotive phrase to use. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 15:44 - Nov 20 with 749 views | Xatticus |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:14 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Do you think you are disagreeing with me somewhere? I absolutely agree on the point about hedge fund managers. Communism goes against human nature and therefore trying to implement it is evil. It is in our nature to strive for rewards. I don't believe that you would dispute that. It it also human nature for a repressed group to rise up, often violently against the ruling class, so aside from the moral argument, there is a necessity from the point of view of physical safety for the ruling class to redistribute wealth to some extent. So I would imagine that, like most reasonable people we are debating to which end of the scale redistribution should be.
You didn't engage in my point of the farmers, who are the opposite of parasitic, but Marxist theory dictates that farmers are exploiting the land and exploiting labour.
It is a great act of vandalism and misdirected indignation to destroy the viability of farming in the UK. People in the city look down on people in the country, and the middle class Labour-supporting city-dwelling intellectuals will probably be happy to gut the farming industry and also meet their net zero targets.
What do you make of inheritance tax? Personally, I feel that it is immoral to tax someone so many times. I think the amount should be set and taken when it is earned. |
"Left-wing redistributive alternatives disincentivize wealth creation and innovation."
I was referring specifically to this statement, which carries the implication that economic gains and technological advancement are the results of the exceptional talents of the wealthy and that they would be less inclined to bestow their graces upon us without the financial incentives that they currently benefit from.
I'm not from the United Kingdom, so I can't speak to the issue you are referring to. I can tell you that capitalism disincentivizes meeting the demands of the population, which is fine for some industries, but unacceptable for necessities, which is why farming is heavily subsidized in the United States. I would guess that this is why UK farmers enjoy this inheritance tax loophole.
A bit of background about me...
My great grandparents immigrated to the United States in the late-19th century. They were rural farmers from Central Europe and had sixteen children, so there was no inheritance for my grandfather. Farming was the trade he learned, but he had no land. He worked land that was owned by a wealthy family. In return, he could live on the land and he got a small patch to grow crops for himself. This was how he fed his family and how he generated income. He was essentially a sharecropper. My grandmother abandoned the family and the courts determined that he had to hire someone to look after the children, which he couldn't afford, and so my mother and her siblings became wards of the state. They were split up and placed in different homes. This gives me a rather different perspective on farmers and land than you might have.
I can tell you that the narrative being put forward by those in opposition is false. I do not know the specifics of this proposed legislation, but it clearly isn't targeting all farmers. It is targeting the exploitation of this inheritance tax loophole. It isn't even closing the loophole. They are simply trying to mitigate the use of this loophole as a means of tax evasion, which seems like a good thing to me. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 15:57 - Nov 20 with 732 views | Xatticus |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:48 - Nov 19 by CoachRob |
Nice post.
Did you sit through standard Neoclassical lectures or did your course have a pluralist approach?
As you eloquently describe, Neoclassical economics is a house of cards, as soon as you start questioning the basic assumptions the whole thing comes apart. The Neoclassicals have been become something of a punchbag at conferences discussing climate change as their work on the subject is so unscientific and is the go to for climate change deniers. |
Neoclassical. I should clarify though that I am not an economist. I sat through two semesters of ECON classes and then switched majors. I thought the curriculum was intellectually dishonest. They teach through a very narrow lens. The calculus works under a very specific set of assumptions that aren't really ever applicable to the real economy. If you challenge this, you are met with derision. It really is a house of cards with a foundation of faulty logic.
I attended a public institution, so others' experiences might vary. I got tired of listening to instructors tell me why they were underpaid and why a progressive tax code is unfair.
It's good to hear that pluralism is gaining traction, but the United States just elected Trump, so forgive me if my enthusiasm is tempered. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 20:26 - Nov 20 with 691 views | Swansea_Blue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 08:46 - Nov 18 by nodge_blue |
Indeed but if you stop the illegal immigration people then feel in control. |
You can't. As long as there are borders, some people will try to cross them when they're not allowed to. The sooner people are honest about that the better, and then we can move on to all supporting calls for a system that is as effective and as efficient as possible in identifying illegal immigrants, which won't be easy. And in an ideal word we'd also look at the root causes of illegal immigration and asylum claimants (the two are not necessarily the same), but, as Guthers says, that's not so easy when countries are becoming more isolationist (whilst the west is simultaneously supplying arms into the regions that are the prime sources of immigrants). |  |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 20:44 - Nov 20 with 685 views | Swansea_Blue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 09:56 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
I think the problem is the scale of the business. I think we were much better off as a society when we had more small businesses employing local people. 10 small local shops each owned by a local businessman and employing people that they know well by name rather a Tescos paying minimum wage to basically interchangeable employees to provide results to head office.
I think the best model is something like Cadbury and Rowntrees where the employees are also looked after and not just used as resources.
We have to have a system that rewards effort and hard work, but also intervenes and breaks up companies like Google that become to powerful an influential over politics, culture, and business.
Now with globalism we outsource our conscience and accept horrific standards in countries like China either ignorantly or with the thought out of sight out of mind. I'm all for tariffs to make slave labour and labour with horrible standards for the workers uncompetitive. |
See, you are a lefty at heart really 
So you don't need to worry about inheritance tax on multi-millionaires (especially when they've received well over any likely IHT due via public subsidies over the years).
Farming's a bit stuffed in this country. I don't think that gives them a free pass on their future tax liabilities (lots of professions are important and don't get tax breaks). I'd rather we looked at the issue of income and fair prices from buyers (supermarkets particularly). But then that needs more wealth in the population to afford higher prices for food. Also, if the farmers received more income, maybe they could take a bit more care with the land they farm and stop pumping it full of pesticides and filing our waterways with toxic sludge (when they haven't taken most of the water out already). | |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 21:32 - Nov 20 with 663 views | WeWereZombies |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 20:44 - Nov 20 by Swansea_Blue |
See, you are a lefty at heart really
So you don't need to worry about inheritance tax on multi-millionaires (especially when they've received well over any likely IHT due via public subsidies over the years).
Farming's a bit stuffed in this country. I don't think that gives them a free pass on their future tax liabilities (lots of professions are important and don't get tax breaks). I'd rather we looked at the issue of income and fair prices from buyers (supermarkets particularly). But then that needs more wealth in the population to afford higher prices for food. Also, if the farmers received more income, maybe they could take a bit more care with the land they farm and stop pumping it full of pesticides and filing our waterways with toxic sludge (when they haven't taken most of the water out already). |
Although I gave you an uppie for the comments in your closing paragraph I would also like to point out that not all farms are part of large corporations and that many of the smaller farms are very concerned about soil and water usage (it is their future so why wouldn't they be ?) The pressure to use ever more nitrogen on the soil in the form of fertiliser may have brought us to the point where much of the soil only has a few decades of use left at all so we should expect an increase in farms moving away from the intensive models that has prevailed for the last sixty years (and perhaps the sole advantage of Brexit is that we are free to do so now we are outside CAP and its descendants.) There has to be some good public relations opportunities for Labour to give tax breaks in that area. | |
| |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 22:42 - Nov 20 with 622 views | reusersfreekicks |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 16:33 - Nov 19 by Europablue |
I think we all forget what newspapers are and have always been unless some people never understood what they are in the first place. They are one of two things, or a mixture of both. They are either a tool of influence (they even endorse political candidates), or a way of making money. Either way they are incredibly biased. The Guardian is no more trustworthy than the Telegraph or the Times. It is a bit hyperbolic to call them rags, because for sure the Sun is the dictionary definition. This thing like about the Sun is that no one thinks that it is a respectable source of unbiased news.
I really love the idea of the BBC. It is supposed to be a shared resource that is supposed to have no bias and represent the country. It is incredibly unrepresentative of the country, but in no way more than how far left the people who work there are. As much as love the idea of the BBC from my youth, I can't support a forced funding of a propaganda arm of the left. It is a shame. The country would be much better for hearing a wide range of views on subjects and understand the breadth of the people who inhabit our isles.
I think we have well and truly fallen into China's trap and they have encircled us. There is very little opportunity to reverse that. Beijing thinks in centuries, whereas we think in election cycles.
I think there are enough reasonable people in the US that a shift of the Overton window back to where people like me were comfortable in the centre (rather than the extremism that seems to be in effect now) will allow America to stay together, but it will not work if the metropolitan elites continue to look down on less educated (but more in touch with the real world) people outside of the cities. It is a concern that the internet has brought together isolated minorities and that the internet has also settled into silos rather than the ideal of the town square that we all share and that the BBC was aiming to be. |
Slagging of the Guardian cos they don't share your right wing perspective is sadly very predictable. To cal the bbc far left is about 30 years out of date. |  | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 22:52 - Nov 20 with 615 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 12:30 - Nov 20 by leitrimblue |
Can you explain how communism is a 'system set up against human nature' in the context of either modern hunter gatherer groups or our own pre neolithic societies?
And how does the idea of each and every member of a tribe/society having equal access to all the resources available in that society appear evil to you? |
It is human nature for different people to put in different amounts of effort. It is human nature to strive to earn rewards by proving value. There has to be a hierarchy. Trying to force a system that goes against human nature is going to create awful results.
Just observing communism in practice in history you can tell that it is evil, just like fascism. It's weird to me that people can be on the same page about fascism, but not communism. | | | |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 23:02 - Nov 20 with 611 views | Europablue |
| A Guardian read for you all! on 09:13 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Isnt it odd how the left wing always accuse the BBC of right wing bias and vice versa.
Arty types tend to be left wing. As do journalists and graduates. So perhaps there is a basis to think there is some left wing inclination. However, to say that tne BBC is left wing, is absurd. They still stick pretty firmly to their principles of impartiality. Often beyond what is reasonable- giving utterly absurd views equal billing to reasoned ones. Farage has probably been on QT more often than anyone. |
It's absurd to concede that arty types, journalists, and graduates tend to be left wing and suggest that that has no influence on the BBC as a whole. They have an admirable charter to provide balanced journalism, but there are so many instances of major fails especially on the Brexit coverage. Emily Maitless and Gary Linaker should have been fired for their behaviour, especially Maitless.
It is very left wing how the BBC hire based on diversity and inclusion rather than just choosing the best person for the job. On all the gender and sexuality lingo, the BBC were an early adopter of the language. If you look into it, you could not suggest that the BBC is not left wing. You only have to read the BBC website to understand the left bias.
I've never heard of trend of left wing people calling the BBC right wing. The BBC is only right wing if you are a card-carrying communist. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
