Re: Kier Starmer : Wed May 26, 2021 1:42 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Well it's a natural position.
If you are so utterly against socialist ideals, you must be part of the selfish, self serving brigade.
You know, the type who never wanted the NHS and would rather walk over someone than help them.

Capaitalism = Selfish
Socialism = Caring

They're not difficult concepts

And the whole point of a progressive taxation system is that those with lease pay less and those with most, pay more or, in the UK, those with most, hide their cash overseas, including many of our politicians, former Prime Ministers etc.

Socialism has nothing to do with caring - Socialism is about state control and making decisions centrally that should in theory are better for the majority. Sadly the theory is not deliverable in practise or hasn't been anywhere as yet

Capitalism is about protecting investors so that wealth can be generated through good ideas that need seed capital. The biggest charitable donators are serial capitalists it how they have the wealth to give away. Capitalists know they have to engage the best people to drive wealth generation - they have to offer something that is better to secure them.

If everything is state owned there is no incentive which is why it doesn't work. It was no shock that we had a terrible transport network, a disaster of a car manufacturer, a telecoms provider that was so poor it took months to even get a phone installed etc. when everything was state owned - happy days!!

I know you think that wearing red underpants, sock and being to sing "keep the red flag flying" puts you on a higher moral plain - sadly that isn't borne out in anywhere apart from your tiny mind.

Re: Kier Starmer : Wed May 26, 2021 2:10 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

Socialism has nothing to do with caring - Socialism is about state control and making decisions centrally that should in theory are better for the majority. Sadly the theory is not deliverable in practise or hasn't been anywhere as yet

Capitalism is about protecting investors so that wealth can be generated through good ideas that need seed capital. The biggest charitable donators are serial capitalists it how they have the wealth to give away. Capitalists know they have to engage the best people to drive wealth generation - they have to offer something that is better to secure them.

If everything is state owned there is no incentive which is why it doesn't work. It was no shock that we had a terrible transport network, a disaster of a car manufacturer, a telecoms provider that was so poor it took months to even get a phone installed etc. when everything was state owned - happy days!!

I know you think that wearing red underpants, sock and being to sing "keep the red flag flying" puts you on a higher moral plain - sadly that isn't borne out in anywhere apart from your tiny mind.

Cheers ZZB.
You, once again you only use extremes of socialism to make your point but, I've come to expect nothing else.
Capital am is the drive to make money at all costs, be they human or environmental. Those chasing the green dollar tend to care for.................... the dollar and not for the welfare of those who may be casualties along the way.

Of course, not ALL companies work in that way and if you go back in the history books, there are great examples of businessmen who ran huge empires AND looked after the welfare of their staff, John Cadbury, Titus Salt etc, who realised that if they looked after their workforce, everyone gained.
Sadly this ethos had largely disappeared and their modern day equivalents, tend to work on the theory that "if you dont want to work here, there are plenty of others that will and they have tried damned hard to trample over employment law and used strong arm tactics to bully their staff into submission.

You have to laugh, when you cite the railways as your example, which despite the derision of Corbyn, when he suggested taking the industry back into the public domain, the Tories are now "stealing" his policy, having given up on the idea of "the market" improving this particular industry.

Btw, you must tell me when I have ever advocated "everything" being state run.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Kier Starmer : Wed May 26, 2021 5:23 pm  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

Socialism has nothing to do with caring - Socialism is about state control and making decisions centrally that should in theory are better for the majority. Sadly the theory is not deliverable in practise or hasn't been anywhere as yet

Capitalism is about protecting investors so that wealth can be generated through good ideas that need seed capital. The biggest charitable donators are serial capitalists it how they have the wealth to give away. Capitalists know they have to engage the best people to drive wealth generation - they have to offer something that is better to secure them.

If everything is state owned there is no incentive which is why it doesn't work. It was no shock that we had a terrible transport network, a disaster of a car manufacturer, a telecoms provider that was so poor it took months to even get a phone installed etc. when everything was state owned - happy days!!

I know you think that wearing red underpants, sock and being to sing "keep the red flag flying" puts you on a higher moral plain - sadly that isn't borne out in anywhere apart from your tiny mind.

I think there is an element there of comparing the best of one thing with the worst of another. That is a rhetorical habit that we nearly all share, so no biggie.

For me the real issue isn't currently really about socialism as you define it above versus capitalism. It is really, for most people in the anything other than the very long term, more of a fight for a better functioning democratic capitalism than we have now. Without some of the poorly aligned incentives, the ever greater concentration of wealth and power, or the crises and absurdities that affect or arise from it and can ultimately lead to major historical dislocations. No system is perfect and socialism is certainly not immune similar issues. However, a lot of capitalist theoreticians are worried and 'lefties' have started citing the Financial Times. To fix things, we have to keep identifying the flaws, always - that isn't the same as attacking the system, and in some ways it is the reverse.

Re: Kier Starmer : Thu May 27, 2021 2:48 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

I think there is an element there of comparing the best of one thing with the worst of another. That is a rhetorical habit that we nearly all share, so no biggie.

For me the real issue isn't currently really about socialism as you define it above versus capitalism. It is really, for most people in the anything other than the very long term, more of a fight for a better functioning democratic capitalism than we have now. Without some of the poorly aligned incentives, the ever greater concentration of wealth and power, or the crises and absurdities that affect or arise from it and can ultimately lead to major historical dislocations. No system is perfect and socialism is certainly not immune similar issues. However, a lot of capitalist theoreticians are worried and 'lefties' have started citing the Financial Times. To fix things, we have to keep identifying the flaws, always - that isn't the same as attacking the system, and in some ways it is the reverse.

You see Mild Rover you know your stuff,come across as well reasoned and dont spin poop to serve your point ,a pleasure to read your posts

[Mild Rover]

Re: Kier Starmer : Thu May 27, 2021 4:00 pm  

JONNYGIANT wrote:

You see Mild Rover you know your stuff,come across as well reasoned and dont spin poop to serve your point ,a pleasure to read your posts

Very kind.

Most people, right and left, liberal and conservative mean well enough. It’s fun to be outraged sometimes though, and I’m not above that from time to time.

Re: Kier Starmer : Sun May 30, 2021 9:10 am  

Piers Morgan’s Life Stories dreary me

Possibly aiming for public sympathy etc but not convinced this is a good move

Re: Kier Starmer : Mon May 31, 2021 8:22 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Cheers ZZB.
You, once again you only use extremes of socialism to make your point but, I've come to expect nothing else.
Capital am is the drive to make money at all costs, be they human or environmental. Those chasing the green dollar tend to care for.................... the dollar and not for the welfare of those who may be casualties along the way.

Of course, not ALL companies work in that way and if you go back in the history books, there are great examples of businessmen who ran huge empires AND looked after the welfare of their staff, John Cadbury, Titus Salt etc, who realised that if they looked after their workforce, everyone gained.
Sadly this ethos had largely disappeared and their modern day equivalents, tend to work on the theory that "if you dont want to work here, there are plenty of others that will and they have tried damned hard to trample over employment law and used strong arm tactics to bully their staff into submission.

You have to laugh, when you cite the railways as your example, which despite the derision of Corbyn, when he suggested taking the industry back into the public domain, the Tories are now "stealing" his policy, having given up on the idea of "the market" improving this particular industry.

Btw, you must tell me when I have ever advocated "everything" being state run.

Herein lies the problem with you lefties - you think all company owners are just arrogant egotists who see the people who work for them as disposable collateral. You are so wrong - the better the people you employ the better your business will be - finding and retaining talent is a very challenging task. Just to suggest if they don't like it go is quite frankly bullsh1t.

So I start a business it becomes very successful - what do I do then - I can't simply say I making more than I can ever spend so I will take my foot off the gas - because if I do that I soon wont have more money than I can ever spend. Unless I move faster than my competitors they will overtake me and then what happens I get smaller I lose all my good people and my business is terminally damaged.

The railways in this country were a laughing stock under public ownership - as was virtually every other public-owned business - out of date, inefficient, under invested, poor staff moral, union dominated etc - why would you want to return to this? May be I have been lucky but I cannot remember last getting a train that was more than 5 minutes late - yesterday I went to Manchester for the cricket trains on time - that was Transpennine.

I don't think the Tories his Corbyn's idea - there's is a very different vision - public owned infrastructure/tickets, private companies run the trains.

Re: Kier Starmer : Mon May 31, 2021 8:30 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

I think there is an element there of comparing the best of one thing with the worst of another. That is a rhetorical habit that we nearly all share, so no biggie.

For me the real issue isn't currently really about socialism as you define it above versus capitalism. It is really, for most people in the anything other than the very long term, more of a fight for a better functioning democratic capitalism than we have now. Without some of the poorly aligned incentives, the ever greater concentration of wealth and power, or the crises and absurdities that affect or arise from it and can ultimately lead to major historical dislocations. No system is perfect and socialism is certainly not immune similar issues. However, a lot of capitalist theoreticians are worried and 'lefties' have started citing the Financial Times. To fix things, we have to keep identifying the flaws, always - that isn't the same as attacking the system, and in some ways it is the reverse.

Most people want a version of a mixed economy it is how it is paid i.e. how do you generate sufficient funds for these publically owned operations correctly. I am not sure that the government owning everything and giving out pocket money is the right way - it certainly hasn't proved to be the case anywhere as yet.

Covid has shown how scary things are when the government controls things too tightly - those on here who think this is a better way than greater freedoms are frankly mad - but of course like Brexit they know best and anyone who can't see that is even madder.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Kier Starmer : Mon May 31, 2021 9:53 am  

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

Most people want a version of a mixed economy it is how it is paid i.e. how do you generate sufficient funds for these publically owned operations correctly. I am not sure that the government owning everything and giving out pocket money is the right way - it certainly hasn't proved to be the case anywhere as yet.

Equally, I am not sure that a corrupt plutocracy, based on populism and privilege is the right way. But just because that is what the Conservative party represents to me, doesn’t make it a fair or accurate representation of your position.

Zoo Zoo Boom wrote:

Covid has shown how scary things are when the government controls things too tightly - those on here who think this is a better way than greater freedoms are frankly mad - but of course like Brexit they know best and anyone who can't see that is even madder.

COVID has been scary because of the virus killing people. We had political leadership deeply ill suited to the task (and yes, Corbyn would have been bad too), but I’d still take that over a focus on libertarianism under these specific circumstances.

Greater freedoms, we’d agree in principle but we’re probably thinking about different freedoms on something like Brexit. You might celebrate the national freedom to diverge from EU regulations, whereas I might regret the loss of personal freedom to live and work in the EU.

Re: Kier Starmer : Tue Jun 01, 2021 12:00 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

Equally, I am not sure that a corrupt plutocracy, based on populism and privilege is the right way. But just because that is what the Conservative party represents to me, doesn’t make it a fair or accurate representation of your position.


COVID has been scary because of the virus killing people. We had political leadership deeply ill suited to the task (and yes, Corbyn would have been bad too), but I’d still take that over a focus on libertarianism under these specific circumstances.

Greater freedoms, we’d agree in principle but we’re probably thinking about different freedoms on something like Brexit. You might celebrate the national freedom to diverge from EU regulations, whereas I might regret the loss of personal freedom to live and work in the EU.

Personal freedoms for me are - having who I want in my house and garden, being able to visit my parents when it suits us both, being able to travel where and when I want, being able to have physical contact with another person who is happy to have physical contact with me, being able to exercise more than once a day etc. these were all basic human rights that the government decided we were grown up enough to manage and banned. I have to wear a mask in certain circumstances - there is very little evidence to suggest they actually help etc.

How much wealth is created by mates of Boris very little - whilst its far from ideal it isn't a game changer in bigger scheme of things. Corbyn was going to repeal all the union legislation to accommodate his union funders - that would have had significant impact on everyday working life.