asperity Posted November 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Speak for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I always do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 You're getting all your "isms" jumbled up here, aspers, and it's a crap cartoon anyway. Â Broadly agree with obs here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 The type of society you idealists hanker after can only be achieved by coersion which leads to dictatorship and ultimately to an elite class lording it over the masses. Learn the lessons of history. I repeat, if it was so simple it would have already happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Asp as Fugs says, you need to sort out your "isms" before you can be taken seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 .. and you believe we don't have coersion in today's society Asp? Every law infringes on someone's freedom or speech or behaviour; that's the nature of human society; it prevents anarchy. The challenge is to design political systems that controls the excesses of elites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Obs,you still haven't explained why, if true socialism is such a good system, why it hasn't been embraced throughout the free world. And don't just say "it's them evil capitalists won't allow it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 It's never really been tried Asp; I'm sure Lenin and Mau set out with the best of intentions, but in the face of isolation by capitalist powers and internal anarchy, they became introverted and totalitarian, and their new elites became as corrupt as the old. Even the USA was founded on the principle " that all men are created equal", but they neglected to include native Americans, Blacks and Women at the time! As I suggest, the challenge is to create a constitutional framework that challenges the gravitation of power and wealth to an elite, and devolves it to the majority. The question is, are the majority interested in political engagement or are they happy to consign such things to a political class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 I think you've answered your own question there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 socialism would never work in the UK because the Liebour party would have to run it and it would run out of money in five weeks so we'd need the capitalists back to sort the mess out again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Errm; since when was the Labour Party "socialist" Baz, you'd have to go back quite a bit. As for "capalists" running things, wern't they running the global banking system when it crashed?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 It wasn't the banks that ran up the deficit. That would be Gordon "Spendthrift" Brown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Gordon ran up the deficit, trying to stop the banks going under, Asp, don't believe the Tory propaganda, in fact they helped vote it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 And why is it so big at the end, oh yes Gordon tried to save capitalism, with help from the Tories, who also voted for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Sorry Asp, I wasn't aware that the Gov were giving out (sub-prime) mortgages to folk who couldn't afford the pay back, thus producing toxic debt; then had to be bailed out by tax-payers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 The government did NOT have to bail out the banks, they could (and in my opinion should) have let them go under. However the government bailout of the banks only made the already dire deficit worse. We shouldn't have been in a deficit situation at the time having had a period when the government should have been saving money not spending it like a Kirkcaldy drunk on a Saturday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 Won't argue with Governments trying to run a balanced budget - but it helps if that's done in better economic climates. However, allowing the Banks to collapse would imo have made matters worse for most folk. Just hope they don't sell the taxpayer's share back to the private sector at knock down prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 If the government hadn't saved the banks there would be no danger of the taxpayer's share being sold at a knock down price. Instead the private sector would have stepped in and bought the banks at a knock down price - market forces in action. You hold up the Tories agreement that the government was right to step in as a justification. But the Tories are politicians the same as the Labour government at the time, which makes them ill - equipped to make such a decision given that politicians are only good at one thing - spending other people's money. All the experts agree that if a bank or business is too big to be allowed to fail, then it's too big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 I don't see anyone stepping in to save the 6500 jobs at Comet.... they will let it go bust and some other private sector companies will pick up whats left and make a go of it. The bad bits will be left to fail. Â They could have done the same with the banks and the profitable high street stuff would have been rescued and the casino banking arms would have been discarded.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 No the banks would not have bought the failing banks out, no bank could borrow the money to buy them as banks were not and still not lending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 I recall when all this started, the lines of "ordinary" folk outside Northern Rock, wondering if their money was still there. The problem was/is, that the Banks were allowed (by light touch regulation) to grow and venture from the high street into the casino of investment banking, and they became too big to fail. Now the Government are supposed to be splitting the two arms of banking and creating smaller high street banking chains, that in future would be allowed to fail. As for world of casino banking, well that's capitalism ain't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Â Capitolism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Â Communism - A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. Â THE PROBLEM IS PEOPLE NOT THE SYSTEMS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Well said Mary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Well there is the solution. Get rid of all these pesky human beings and socialism will work just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.