[bananaterracottapie]

(Original post by prog2djent)
People seriously ******* need to learn the difference between socialism and statism, the USA and australia, under you're definitions, would be socialist.

i thought the op was talking about socialist ideas..

[chefdave]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
And if you went into politics millions more people would suffer and not be able to afford education, healthcare etc etc.

Education is extremely cheap these days as the internet has revolutionised the transfer of knowledge. Everyone can "afford" to have an education when information is free, but this isn't good enough for lefties because their raison'd'etre is to spend vast amounts of other peoples cash on pet projects to make themselves feel important. It's not about education or healthcare per se it's about control, you're only fooling youself when you come out with trite statements such as "think of the children!"

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by chefdave)
Education is extremely cheap these days as the internet has revolutionised the transfer of knowledge. Everyone can "afford" to have an education when information is free, but this isn't good enough for lefties because their raison'd'etre is to spend vast amounts of other peoples cash on pet projects to make themselves feel important. It's not about education or healthcare per se it's about control, you're only fooling youself when you come out with trite statements such as "think of the children!"

I am sorry but that just isn't true.
Yes things like the internet have made things like getting information and learning very easy and cheap.
But that is not the same thing as education.
Education will always be expensive.

I will give you an example.
You can teach yourself to program quite easily thanks to the internet. But generally, someone who has gone through a computer science / software engineering degree will usually be a better programmer.

And your argument doesn't really hold up for healthcare.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by chefdave)
Education is extremely cheap these days as the internet has revolutionised the transfer of knowledge. Everyone can "afford" to have an education when information is free, but this isn't good enough for lefties because their raison'd'etre is to spend vast amounts of other peoples cash on pet projects to make themselves feel important. It's not about education or healthcare per se it's about control, you're only fooling youself when you come out with trite statements such as "think of the children!"

Excellent.

I've learnt more from the internet and generally just reading, than state education has tought me throughout school and college.

I think America proves it best, when more power is handed to teachers unions on the public sector, who care not about quality, the more money that has been spent on education HAS NOT made any difference and test scored have actually grown worse.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
You mean the lack of regulation of the banks?

Don't even get me started on that.
What LACK of regulation was there?!- There was enough regulation to employ about 10,000 public sector paper-shuffling bureaucrats.

JJC:
"In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster."

I am not a protector of banks that should have failed in a free market - the partially socialist state you promote gave them tax money. Those banks that did not need bailing out (the banks that you would probably call good businesses) are the ones that lost out because of the system you are promoting! A partially socialist state artificially supports everything that should fail to improve the market.

what I said has nothing to do with crony capitalism.

It was exactly crony capitalism 'not what you know, who you know' - That is crony

You have:
1 - People who are born into poverty.
2 - Those who are disabled and so cannot work.
3 - Those who are ill and so cannot work.
4 - Those who have illnesses or injuries so they cannot work at that time.
5 - Those who end up in difficult situations outside of their control (a single parent whose partner had left them).
6 - Those who have to look after relatives or whatever.
All of those would be left at the bottom in a totally capitalist society, yet I fail to see why they at all deserve it.

1. A couple who are in even remote chance of being in poverty in the next nine months should not have a baby - unless they are really that stupid, in which case their human capital is poor, their offspring does not deserve the benefit of insurance. Even those with some resources can, if they prioritise (which uneducated people do not do - it is their own offspring they are disadvantaging - kinda self-defeating from a purely logical perspective).
2. Long-term disabled people CAN work. There are somethings they may not be able to do (due to their disability), but saying that they cannot do any job that a prosperous free market economy provides surely is a general belittlement of disabled people on your behalf - I see your left-inclination is shining through in your belief of other's abilities not
3/4. General insurance/ sick pay cover this
5. Can't really say much more than if you pick the wrong partner and are stupid enough for the relationship to get to the point when you have a child before you notice they are the wrong person for you then, once again, you are disadvantaging your own offspring - self-defeating.
6. Care such as this should be covered by insurance. If someone purchases insurance that does not cover something that they are likely to need in the future, then who can you really blame in 99% of cases except the person itself - and do not come back with the age-old 'they cannot afford it' - prioritisation of spending is a result of human capital = success not failure. And in that 1% of truly unlucky cases, isn't bad luck what insurance is designed for? dno bout you but bad days are what would make me buy insurance (because I have the human capital to plan ahead and prioritise)

And even if someone at the bottom of society does deserve to be there they still deserve healthcare. Unless you are happy with them dying on your doorstep.

Trust me, I wouldn't live in you're kind of neighbourhood

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Don't even get me started on that.
What LACK of regulation was there?!- There was enough regulation to employ about 10,000 public sector paper-shuffling bureaucrats.

Well, the lack of regulation that let the banks get into the state they did.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
I am not a protector of banks that should have failed in a free market

And what about the consequences of that? The money people and other businesses would have lost?

(Original post by JuKaMy)
It was exactly crony capitalism 'not what you know, who you know' - That is crony

Nope, it is just society.
You are more than likely to give a job to someone you know. Simple.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
1. A couple who are in even remote chance of being in poverty in the next nine months should not have a baby - unless they are really that stupid, in which case their human capital is poor, their offspring does not deserve the benefit of insurance. Even those with some resources can, if they prioritise (which uneducated people do not do - it is their own offspring they are disadvantaging - kinda self-defeating from a purely logical perspective).

Of course, circumstances change. You could lose your job (no fault of your own if the company you work for goes bust, or whatever), and any savings you may have would be gone pretty quickly then.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
2. Long-term disabled people CAN work.

Some can. Others cannot.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
3/4. General insurance/ sick pay cover this

Again, if they can afford insurance and if the insurance company will cover them.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
5. Can't really say much more than if you pick the wrong partner and are stupid enough for the relationship to get to the point when you have a child before you notice they are the wrong person for you then, once again, you are disadvantaging your own offspring - self-defeating.

Of course, everyone but you cannot tell the future. Things happen, change. You cannot predict them. Someone who could seem like the perfect partner may change

And of course, not all single parents are single because the other left. People die too.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
6. Care such as this should be covered by insurance.

As above. Especially in the case of personal care, because of how expensive it is.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
If someone purchases insurance that does not cover something that they are likely to need in the future, then who can you really blame in 99% of cases except the person itself - and do not come back with the age-old 'they cannot afford it' - prioritisation of spending is a result of human capital = success not failure. And in that 1% of truly unlucky cases, isn't bad luck what insurance is designed for? dno bout you but bad days are what would make me buy insurance (because I have the human capital to plan ahead and prioritise)

As above. Someone not being able to afford it does not mean it is their fault. Some things are expensive. Is it my fault because I cannot afford to buy a spacecraft? Of course not. Such things are expensive.
If I have x to spend, and I need to pay for things that a necessary that all come up to x together, then I have no money left over to pay for insurance. That isn't my fault. That is reality. Nothing to do with prioritising. Unless you suggest someone should put insurance before food or shelter.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Trust me, I wouldn't live in you're kind of neighbourhood

So you are essentially suggesting we live in ghettos?
Also well done for ignoring reality.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Well, the lack of regulation that let the banks get into the state they did.

Like i said in my last post - what LACK of regulation? There was more than should ever be applied if regulation actually does the job people like you think it does - but it does not. Also everyone educated on the matter of regulation know that the public sector cannot attract skills higher than those in investment banks making the next derivative or structured product - the banks will always pay more for skills and if they buy skills that make them fail then that was the banks fault. Public sector regulators will always be two steps behind the market they regulate because skills don't go to the public sector, the bottom of the skill pool go to the public sector.

And what about the consequences of that? The money people and other businesses would have lost?

The money they chose to put in those banks, rather than secure banks. It is a market decision to place you capital in a given bank - you are risking your capital and that involves the failure of a bank, you have to deal with that by putting your capital in the best bank = the beauty of free market capitalism.

Nope, it is just society.
You are more than likely to give a job to someone you know. Simple.

If you employ someone who is not good at a job, you are risking your own business. You can give it to your pub-mate all you want, your own risk. So in a free market, success comes above giving your friend a position that actually matters to the business. I don't see how you don't get the simplicity of the fact that if a firm has to survive in a free market, rather than just get along in a socialist backed one where there is no risk of being allowed to fail by government, they employ the person who produces success for the business, not anybody else.

And of course, not all single parents are single because the other left. People die too.

Life insurance maybe? - you really do like to miss the simplicity of my arguments

Is it my fault because I cannot afford to buy a spacecraft?
...
Also well done for ignoring reality.

i see you have a sense of humour

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Like i said in my last post - what LACK of regulation?

The lack of regulation that let the banks get into the state they did.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Public sector regulators will always be two steps behind the market they regulate because skills don't go to the public sector, the bottom of the skill pool go to the public sector.

At least they would actually be giving it a go. Better than not doing anything and ending up in the situation we did.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
The money they chose to put in those banks, rather than secure banks.

Except most people have no idea what the investment arm of that bank is doing, and it is no way reasonable to expect them to know.
Hell, most people in the know didn't realise what was going on, because if they did the crisis would have been averted.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
the beauty of free market capitalism.

How is the risk of losing your money anywhere near "beauty"?

(Original post by JuKaMy)
If you employ someone who is not good at a job, you are risking your own business. You can give it to your pub-mate all you want, your own risk.

I didn't say someone who is no good at the job. But just isn't as good as someone else. It happens all the time and there is no reason to think it wouldn't happen.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
So in a free market, success comes above giving your friend a position that actually matters to the business. I don't see how you don't get the simplicity of the fact that if a firm has to survive in a free market, rather than just get along in a socialist backed one where there is no risk of being allowed to fail by government, they employ the person who produces success for the business, not anybody else.

You seem to be under the assumption that employing someone you know over someone you don't means the business failing.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Life insurance maybe? - you really do like to miss the simplicity of my arguments

Insurance that many people would not be able to afford, or not be able to get.
You really do like to miss the simplicity of my arguments.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
i see you have a sense of humour

My point was that some things are simply out of the reach of money people.
To emphasis the point I used spacecraft. But insurance is (and would be) no different.

[JuKaMy]

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
The lack of regulation that let the banks get into the state they did.

Stop repeating if you notice your argument is flawed

At least they would actually be giving it a go. Better than not doing anything and ending up in the situation we did.

Actually if they did nothing and got to the same point tax money would not have been wasted = better. Kinda obvious, right.

Except most people have no idea what the investment arm of that bank is doing

So, you are just proving my point - If you do not know and you put your money there = fail.

How is the risk of losing your money anywhere near "beauty"?

The flow of capital to the best business and individuals and the flow of capital away from the worst businesses and worst individuals is beauty. Built in natural selection and incentive for doing economically sensible things - how can you think that not to be a system of beauty. (maybe because socialism supports failure and takes incentive from the successful to feed the failures?)

I didn't say someone who is no good at the job. But just isn't as good as someone else.

The business still loses out over the highest bidder for the job - still a loss to the business wherever along the scale you want to place the friend/other applicants.

You really do like to miss the simplicity of my arguments.

There is my simplicity of argument, and your simplicity of mind - two separate things

To emphasis the point I used spacecraft. But insurance is (and would be) no different.

In 2012 I would be as bold as saying that as far as prioritising necessities:
Insurance > A spacecraft

Similarly:
Incentives > diminished incentives
Business competition > diminished business competition
Natural selection of success > diminished selection of success
Freedom to better yourself > diminished freedom to do so

100% Freedom > (100 - x)% Freedom

Goodnight, I won't be replying after this
(no matter how hollow your reply is)

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by prog2djent)
That's from the same PMQ speech where she said that socialists would be happy for everyone to be poorer, aslong as the rich were poorer aswell, then the opposition were all shaking their heads, and she said something like "it may not be you're intention, but that's what will happen".

She basically stole it from Hayek.

Even if she did, it is nice to see a PM reading up on economics. It was I believe her final PMQs, and the criticism from Labour was about the gap between rich and poor. Her point was that the gap is irrelevant provided the situation of the poor is improved, an idea borne out in reality.
The lowest gap countries vary by measure chosen but include Bolivia, Sierra Leone and Namibia, while the highest gaps are seen in Japan, Sweden and Denmark.
I know which set I would choose to live in.

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by JuKaMy)
There is my simplicity of argument, and your simplicity of mind - two separate things

There is a clear simplicity of my argument.
Some people cannot afford insurance.
Some people cannot get insurance.
You have failed to reply to those points.

(Original post by JuKaMy)
In 2012 I would be as bold as saying that as far as prioritising necessities:
Insurance > A spacecraft

However, things like food, shelter, etc all come before insurance.
So once again, what about people who CANNOT AFFORD insurance?

(Original post by JuKaMy)
Similarly:
Incentives > diminished incentives
Business competition > diminished business competition
Natural selection of success > diminished selection of success
Freedom to better yourself > diminished freedom to do so

100% Freedom > (100 - x)% Freedom

Not if that "freedom" leads to people suffering because they of lack of money.
Also:
1 - Having socialist ideas in a capitalist society (as we do now) does not disincentive anything.
2 - As point 1 basically. Having things like the NHS and state education does not stop private competition.
3 - Pure capitalism has nothing to do with "natural selection". A large amount of it is luck and who you know.
4 - And what about those who NEED state help (things like the NHS, state education etc) to better themselves?

[Chad_Bronson]

Look, we can argue all day about what is the right political system and what isn't the right political system. Countless threads have been made on Thatcher, socialism, privatisation etc.

We need to respect and understand that we need the best fruitations of both left-wing and right-wing ideas for benefitting us individually, and us as a society. For example the NHS was a socialist idea, created under then left-wing Labour, so that should remain as is without priviatisation. We need capitalism to give us better standards of living.

Etc.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Chad_Bronson)
We need to respect and understand that we need the best fruitations of both left-wing and right-wing ideas for benefitting us individually, and us as a society. For example the NHS was a socialist idea, created under then left-wing Labour, so that should remain as is without priviatisation. We need capitalism to give us better standards of living.

Etc.

Still don't get why people think the NHS was a socialist idea, it may have come from a soft-core socialist, and was implemented by a barely left wing labour at them ... but still ...

[WelshBluebird]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Still don't get why people think the NHS was a socialist idea, it may have come from a soft-core socialist, and was implemented by a barely left wing labour at them ... but still ...

I have bolded the key points.

(Original post by Chad_Bronson)
Look, we can argue all day about what is the right political system and what isn't the right political system. Countless threads have been made on Thatcher, socialism, privatisation etc.

We need to respect and understand that we need the best fruitations of both left-wing and right-wing ideas for benefitting us individually, and us as a society. For example the NHS was a socialist idea, created under then left-wing Labour, so that should remain as is without priviatisation. We need capitalism to give us better standards of living.

Etc.

And this is pretty much what I have been saying throughout the thread.

[Chad_Bronson]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Still don't get why people think the NHS was a socialist idea, it may have come from a soft-core socialist, and was implemented by a barely left wing labour at them ... but still ...

It might have been ignorance on my part, but even New Labour (or what was left of it) have tried to proclaim the NHS is a fundamentally socialist idea. I think Gordon Brown even said it himself in the run up to the 2010 election.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Chad_Bronson)
Look, we can argue all day about what is the right political system and what isn't the right political system. Countless threads have been made on Thatcher, socialism, privatisation etc.

We need to respect and understand that we need the best fruitations of both left-wing and right-wing ideas for benefitting us individually, and us as a society. For example the NHS was a socialist idea, created under then left-wing Labour, so that should remain as is without priviatisation. We need capitalism to give us better standards of living.

Etc.

I see you're an exponent of the dog-poo yoghurt fallacy:

"It goes like this: one side of this debate thinks that the best thing to put in yoghurt is fruit; the other side is of the view that what really needs to be added to yoghurt is a nice bit of dog poo. Now suppose we were to compromise. Suppose the latter faction were to concede sufficient ground to agree that only a tiny quantity of dog poo should go into the mainly fruit-rich yoghurt, would this constitute a victory for commonsense?

Of course it wouldn't. Even if just the smallest, smidgen of a fraction of dog poo were to go into that yoghurt it would still be irredeemably tainted."

[Barden]

(Original post by Sdiff)
Probably because socialism ruined the British economy before she came in. It is a morally reprehensible ideology which advocates stealing money from productive members of society and giving it to unproductive members of society.

Also strong misc presence ITT.

Production of what?

Surely if that was the case, then socialism would be the stockbrokers stealing from the factory workers...

[chefdave]

(Original post by Barden)
Production of what?

Surely if that was the case, then socialism would be the stockbrokers stealing from the factory workers...

Do you think that socialists are unique in opposing the widespread looting that takes place in the City? I take it the irony is lost on you that while a Labour government where busy gifting the banking class £billions capitalists from all over were opposed to the bailouts, including those in the Conservative party such as Hannan and Carswell.

[Barden]

(Original post by chefdave)
Do you think that socialists are unique in opposing the widespread looting that takes place in the City? I take it the irony is lost on you that while a Labour government where busy gifting the banking class £billions capitalists from all over were opposed to the bailouts, including those in the Conservative party such as Hannan and Carswell.

I wasn't arguing, nor was I doing so from an ideological position.

I was merely pointing out that 'productive' is a stupid term to use, since (in a market economy) material production and economic production are directly reliant on each other.

I.e. the worker and the owner (in a factory, for instance) are just as 'productive' as each other.

My own leaning towards the left is due to my belief that all things considered, the worker is more deserving when it comes to distributing the wealth generated. But my beliefs are not what I came here to espouse.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Barden)
I wasn't arguing, nor was I doing so from an ideological position.

I was merely pointing out that 'productive' is a stupid term to use, since (in a market economy) material production and economic production are directly reliant on each other.

I.e. the worker and the owner (in a factory, for instance) are just as 'productive' as each other.

My own leaning towards the left is due to my belief that all things considered, the worker is more deserving when it comes to distributing the wealth generated. But my beliefs are not what I came here to espouse.

Productive is a actually a very good term because it helps us distinguish between the useful and the useless. A farmer growing crops and then selling them onto Tescos could accurately be described as a productive individual whereas someone residing on benefits could equally be labelled 'unproductive' with just cause.

In terms of the capitalist/worker dichotomy the evidence leaves us in little doubt, workers are much more productive than their capitalist counterparts and this is reflected in the distribution of national income, while capital generates a gross return of ~10% labour in contrast is rewarded with nearer 40-50%. While socialists tend to focus on the 10% generated by capitalists they totally ignore the final 40-50% that is 'earned' by the landowing class, i.e landlords, landowners and the wealthy individuals that own our high streets. Personally I'd redistribute this money rather than try and eat into the tiny share taken by capital. Yes stockbrokers are scum but don't let their activities distract you from the bigger picture.