The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[Houdini Logic]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Socialism isn’t the obverse of capitalism, only a narrow definition of it is.

 

Unfettered capitalism absolutely doesn’t increase the wealth of everyone, money is accumulated by an increasingly tiny number of people in a fixed system. You’re living a life of denial if you can’t see the ever increasing chasm between rich and poor. Society seems to want to celebrate individual entrepreneurs for their genius, they aren’t, they’re just selfish *****. Obscene wealth while millions can’t heat or eat - and where the **** is a decent welfare state? Not in the ****ing uk.

I would love to see a different system in place but I just can't see any realistic alternative, especially in the UK. As soon as we move slightly away from being a financialised economy then the few benefits that all of us do enjoy will be obsolete. We don't produce anything as a country so sadly we're kind of dependent on the entire thing we hate. Genuinely keen to hear about any potential alternatives.

For me, capitalism, while not ideal, actually could be a vehicle by which we do ensure everyone can live a comfortable life in the UK - if only the government ensured that people and corporations paid the appropriate tax, and then subsequently spent that money on helping the right people. That's how I would solve the problem because I think any alternative is sadly unrealistic, though always keen to hear different ideas...

[Dahnsouff]

16 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

yes

I tell you what, you show me a good  system that works - this seems reasonable, right?

 

(I do hope you aren't one of these naught but a naysayer types)

[Fazzer 7]

8 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

I would love to see a different system in place but I just can't see any realistic alternative, especially in the UK. As soon as we move slightly away from being a financialised economy then the few benefits that all of us do enjoy will be obsolete. We don't produce anything as a country so sadly we're kind of dependent on the entire thing we hate. Genuinely keen to hear about any potential alternatives.

For me, capitalism, while not ideal, actually could be a vehicle by which we do ensure everyone can live a comfortable life in the UK - if only the government ensured that people and corporations paid the appropriate tax, and then subsequently spent that money on helping the right people. That's how I would solve the problem because I think any alternative is sadly unrealistic, though always keen to hear different ideas...

People like Elon Musk, Gates, Bezos&co with their billions. What do they actually do with it? I’m assuming these astronomical sums aren’t personal wealth, it must be tied up in their business empires surely. I mean 1 billion will buy you quite a few super yachts and private jets. 

[RoboFox]

Anyone with any unbiased foresight predicted the outcomes of Brexit. I maintain that there were probably a handful of genuine believers in it on both sides of the political spectrum, none of which ever had a position of power on frontline politics. Those that backed it publicly did only did so as part of a long-term political game of chess in order to strengthen their positions or get themselves up the food chain. It was never about "taking back power" or any of the other bollocks that they parroted ad infinitum, it was Cameron's power-grab gamble that backfired spectacularly and we're still feeling the ramifications from it now. If the vote had gone the other way, we'd still have a competent Tory government, because "getting Brexit done" was basically cue for anyone with any credibility to be purged from frontline politics.

 

Fvck Cameron. 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

You are right, unfettered capitalism is abhorrent, but is that really what we have? The struggles of the lower paid has little or nothing to do with our capitalism directly, it has everything to do with people, with unscrupulous individuals.

On another note, I thought Socialism did not discount some having more than others (Thats communism isn't it?)  Anyway some people will always still want to have more of things than others in any system.

Therefore, unfettered - and more so under the last couple of Tory iterations, transforming a democracy into a fully fledged kleptocracy. 

 

I’ve no problem with some having more than others, I’ve an absolute problem with some having nothing while others have more than they could possibly spend in a lifetime. I have a problem with the blinkered nature of those who either experienced no suffering of their own and/or hold no empathy for the suffering of others. Some will always ‘want’ more, but there’s a reason we teach our children that you can’t always have what you want. 

[Daggers]

58 minutes ago, Houdini Logic said:

I would love to see a different system in place but I just can't see any realistic alternative, especially in the UK. As soon as we move slightly away from being a financialised economy then the few benefits that all of us do enjoy will be obsolete. We don't produce anything as a country so sadly we're kind of dependent on the entire thing we hate. Genuinely keen to hear about any potential alternatives.

For me, capitalism, while not ideal, actually could be a vehicle by which we do ensure everyone can live a comfortable life in the UK - if only the government ensured that people and corporations paid the appropriate tax, and then subsequently spent that money on helping the right people. That's how I would solve the problem because I think any alternative is sadly unrealistic, though always keen to hear different ideas...

Sure, I’m pretty much an ideological Digger at heart - but that is tempered by the knowledge that we should create policies and vote for governments in the world we live in, not the ideal we’d like to see. Socialism isn’t anti-business or wealth, a wealthy economy does benefit all with better education and health care spending. My socialism is about fairness, it’s about making the slices of the cake a bit more equal and allowing everyone access to the cake stand.

[Thefox81]

1 minute ago, Daggers said:

Therefore, unfettered - and more so under the last couple of Tory iterations, transforming a democracy into a fully fledged kleptocracy. 

 

I’ve no problem with some having more than others, I’ve an absolute problem with some having nothing while others have more than they could possibly spend in a lifetime. I have a problem with the blinkered nature of those who either experienced no suffering of their own and/or hold no empathy for the suffering of others. Some will always ‘want’ more, but there’s a reason we teach our children that you can’t always have what you want. 

Spot on. Even though i am comfortable how can these million/billionaires lay in their luxury beds in their mansions and see the suffering that is going on right now. Shambles of a government and a country a whole. Every time we do our reduced weekly shop we buy extra and drop it into the food bank on the way out. Were just doing it for those who are struggling. So if anyone is struggling then feel free to DM me. Me and the mrs will help if we can. 

[Houdini Logic]

9 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Sure, I’m pretty much an ideological Digger at heart - but that is tempered by the knowledge that we should create policies and vote for governments in the world we live in, not the ideal we’d like to see. Socialism isn’t anti-business or wealth, a wealthy economy does benefit all with better education and health care spending. My socialism is about fairness, it’s about making the slices of the cake a bit more equal and allowing everyone access to the cake stand.

So capitalism in itself isn't the problem, it's the version which we have and how its regulated/used/abused, or not fully exploited for the masses, which is the problem? That's actually my sentiment so if I've understood your view it sound like we're in agreement

[bovril]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

Anyone with any unbiased foresight predicted the outcomes of Brexit. I maintain that there were probably a handful of genuine believers in it on both sides of the political spectrum, none of which ever had a position of power on frontline politics. Those that backed it publicly did only did so as part of a long-term political game of chess in order to strengthen their positions or get themselves up the food chain. It was never about "taking back power" or any of the other bollocks that they parroted ad infinitum, it was Cameron's power-grab gamble that backfired spectacularly and we're still feeling the ramifications from it now. If the vote had gone the other way, we'd still have a competent Tory government, because "getting Brexit done" was basically cue for anyone with any credibility to be purged from frontline politics.

 

Fvck Cameron. 

Interesting to imagine what would have happened. I think the country would be even more Eurosceptic as the current woes would be blamed on the EU. Also I think it's likely the Conservatives would have lost the next election (2020?) as Eurosceptic voters left them. Brexit has been good for keeping them in power for now, but long term it's disastrous for the Conservatives. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, RoboFox said:

Anyone with any unbiased foresight predicted the outcomes of Brexit. I maintain that there were probably a handful of genuine believers in it on both sides of the political spectrum, none of which ever had a position of power on frontline politics. Those that backed it publicly did only did so as part of a long-term political game of chess in order to strengthen their positions or get themselves up the food chain. It was never about "taking back power" or any of the other bollocks that they parroted ad infinitum, it was Cameron's power-grab gamble that backfired spectacularly and we're still feeling the ramifications from it now. If the vote had gone the other way, we'd still have a competent Tory government, because "getting Brexit done" was basically cue for anyone with any credibility to be purged from frontline politics.

 

Fvck Cameron. 

Brexit (like everything) has positives and negatives.  Positives from brexit seemed mainly to be in the distance whereas the negatives all seemed to be in the near timeframe. I it’s a hard sell to say ‘patience - it will be good in fifteen years’. So the brexiteers never mentioned that these benefits were many years away whilst nearly all the downside was close. 
 

no one who was unbiased could 100% say that brexit would be good/bad/indifferent over a period of time. By that  definition they still can’t. But as I said to anyone who asked me in 2016, I don’t think the basis of our economy is in a good enough place to throw the balls in the air and see where and when they land.  

 

if the brexit vote had been to remain then the ERG and farage would not have gone away - we would have still have had a Tory govt which was often ‘paralysed’ with infighting and fear of ukip and it may not even have been a Tory admin post last GE. 
 

 

[Dames]

1 hour ago, Houdini Logic said:

So capitalism in itself isn't the problem, it's the version which we have and how its regulated/used/abused, or not fully exploited for the masses, which is the problem? That's actually my sentiment so if I've understood your view it sound like we're in agreement

Capitalism works if its heavily regulated, but the problem is that there are lots of sociopaths and ghouls willing to wreck the lives of millions to make a few extra quid. The biggest problem we have is that shareholders have become addicted to record breaking profits year on year which means they are willing to do almost anything to achieve that. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a large company make a healthy (but not record breaking) profit and then announce that it is restructuring. 

 

A lot of these shareholders have become addicted to dining on the public purse and are absolutely unwilling to share with anyone else, so they lobby and pour untold resources into ensuring we subsidise their profits. The NHS is a huge example of this, so many consultancy companies are draining them of cash (hundreds of millions) year on year and providing next to no actual service. Money that could be much better spent immediately. 

 

There needs to be a separation of public and private services, there is a place for private services to thrive and make money and there is a place for well-funded public services to provide quality services without the spectre of privatization looming over them.
 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

I like how the Government cannot just blame the EU for everything now, they've got to actually take responsibility for the decisions they make, which is sadly why we're in this situation, as for years MPs have been getting more and more useless, they're just pushed and propped into the position a lot of the time. As someone else said, when we voted Leave, a lot of the good Remain MPs left, which left us many good MPs down and were never replaced. If we were still in the EU, the Tories would be blaming them for loads of things, saying there hands are tied etc. As it is, they can't, and now people like me can see they're useless and will not be voting for them again at the next GE.

[Tommy G]

14 minutes ago, Dames said:

Capitalism works if its heavily regulated, but the problem is that there are lots of sociopaths and ghouls willing to wreck the lives of millions to make a few extra quid. The biggest problem we have is that shareholders have become addicted to record breaking profits year on year which means they are willing to do almost anything to achieve that. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a large company make a healthy (but not record breaking) profit and then announce that it is restructuring. 

 

A lot of these shareholders have become addicted to dining on the public purse and are absolutely unwilling to share with anyone else, so they lobby and pour untold resources into ensuring we subsidise their profits. The NHS is a huge example of this, so many consultancy companies are draining them of cash (hundreds of millions) year on year and providing next to no actual service. Money that could be much better spent immediately. 

 

There needs to be a separation of public and private services, there is a place for private services to thrive and make money and there is a place for well-funded public services to provide quality services without the spectre of privatization looming over them.
 

 

Probably doing that to keep the confidence in the share price - I agree with you on your point, also most business leaders rightly or wrongly are incentivised to maximise profits for the shareholders - some directors being shareholders themselves. I haven't really ever seen an incentive scheme which deviates from this. It's the way of the world

Edited 18 October 2022 by Tommy G

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Houdini Logic said:

So capitalism in itself isn't the problem, it's the version which we have and how its regulated/used/abused, or not fully exploited for the masses, which is the problem? That's actually my sentiment so if I've understood your view it sound like we're in agreement

I think we do differ, but I'm not here for the a blown argument or to proselytise about the benefits of shared/social ownership. Pretty sure nobody has ever had their mind changed by a forum or social media.  

[foxes1988]

12 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I like how the Government cannot just blame the EU for everything now, they've got to actually take responsibility for the decisions they make, which is sadly why we're in this situation, as for years MPs have been getting more and more useless, they're just pushed and propped into the position a lot of the time. As someone else said, when we voted Leave, a lot of the good Remain MPs left, which left us many good MPs down and were never replaced. If we were still in the EU, the Tories would be blaming them for loads of things, saying there hands are tied etc. As it is, they can't, and now people like me can see they're useless and will not be voting for them again at the next GE.

I didn't want to leave nor would I vote for it again but this was the biggest plus for me for us leaving.  All political parties used the EU as an excuse for their own failings.

 

The EU was mainly involved in the agriculture, fisheries and development funds yet the way the Brexit referendum got talked about was as if it was the be all and end all.  Obviously the Uk could stand on its own two feet out of Europe so was never going to be a economic disaster but we were never particularly gaining anything from leaving either.  Take back control was just a slogan but I still don't know what we've taken back control of.

[weller54]

9 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

I didn't want to leave nor would I vote for it again but this was the biggest plus for me for us leaving.  All political parties used the EU as an excuse for their own failings.

 

The EU was mainly involved in the agriculture, fisheries and development funds yet the way the Brexit referendum got talked about was as if it was the be all and end all.  Obviously the Uk could stand on its own two feet out of Europe so was never going to be a economic disaster but we were never particularly gaining anything from leaving either.  Take back control was just a slogan but I still don't know what we've taken back control of.

Brexit was never going to be an economic disaster???

[foxes1988]

2 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Brexit was never going to be an economic disaster???

I wouldn't call that a disaster I would say its more a complication.  

[Zear0]

23 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Brexit was never going to be an economic disaster???

Project fear innit.

[Houdini Logic]

50 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I think we do differ, but I'm not here for the a blown argument or to proselytise about the benefits of shared/social ownership. Pretty sure nobody has ever had their mind changed by a forum or social media.  

OK I must have misinterpreted your reply. Maybe I'm an exception but I find these conversations useful for forming my own opinions. I am genuinely interested in what other people think, particularly in areas that I would like to see happen but can't quite figure out how - there doesn't need to be an argument. But fair play, I respect your approach

[Houdini Logic]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

Capitalism works if its heavily regulated, but the problem is that there are lots of sociopaths and ghouls willing to wreck the lives of millions to make a few extra quid. The biggest problem we have is that shareholders have become addicted to record breaking profits year on year which means they are willing to do almost anything to achieve that. I've lost count of how many times I've seen a large company make a healthy (but not record breaking) profit and then announce that it is restructuring. 

 

A lot of these shareholders have become addicted to dining on the public purse and are absolutely unwilling to share with anyone else, so they lobby and pour untold resources into ensuring we subsidise their profits. The NHS is a huge example of this, so many consultancy companies are draining them of cash (hundreds of millions) year on year and providing next to no actual service. Money that could be much better spent immediately. 

 

There needs to be a separation of public and private services, there is a place for private services to thrive and make money and there is a place for well-funded public services to provide quality services without the spectre of privatization looming over them.
 

 

This is because executives are incentivised by the share price through Agency Theory, so they will do anything to increase the share price because it will increase their own personal wealth as well as keeping them in a job. Certain bodies (WEF, etc) are trying to advocate for the move from shareholder primacy (i.e. agency theory) to stakeholder primacy, but we'll see if there's actually any change in this area. I doubt it. Also, profits only tell part of the story - usually a reason to restructure is based on worries about cash flow. You can make or lose profit time and time again, but you can only run out of cash once - so that is usually the driver for companies to negatively restructure. If profits and cash flow are healthy they usually tend to expand. 

[StanSP]

 

 

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Project fear innit.

Believe harder. 

[RoboFox]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Project fear innit.

When you've got people at the Torygraph admitting that "Project Fear was right all along" then you know that Brexit hill is getting smaller and smaller.

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Brexit (like everything) has positives and negatives.  Positives from brexit seemed mainly to be in the distance whereas the negatives all seemed to be in the near timeframe. I it’s a hard sell to say ‘patience - it will be good in fifteen years’. So the brexiteers never mentioned that these benefits were many years away whilst nearly all the downside was close. 

Can you describe the positives?

[StanSP]