The Student Room Group

Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Aph
Well economics are messed up, the contribution to society is Importent not the people who want to see them. Also seeing as football has little positive impact I wouldn't be adverse to banning it. Much like. TV wrestling.



Contribution to society is subjective.

If somebody has paid to watch a footballer and they don't get paid that much, then the money will go. To the even richer owners, not to farmers.

Oh so you'd ban things that people like just because you dislike them and think they are "unfair"?

People are free to spend their money however they want if they want to pay footballers wages that is their choice and it is not their obligation to give to charity or anything of the sort.

You can't just pay cleaners and farmers loads of money, the government doesn't have that sort of money, but footballers can be paid that much as it is a private business paying them and they can pay them however much or however little they want to.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 101
Original post by Aph
Well economics are messed up, the contribution to society is Importent not the people who want to see them. Also seeing as football has little positive impact I wouldn't be adverse to banning it. Much like. TV wrestling.



There is no such thing as society. Something being 'good for society' is meaningless.

There are things that are good to individuals and groups of individuals but not society.
Reply 102
Original post by Falcatas
There is no such thing as society. Something being 'good for society' is meaningless.

There are things that are good to individuals and groups of individuals but not society.

Why would you say that?
Original post by RFowler
The main problem I have with the Green party is that being environmentalist and left wing, it plays into the hands of the anti-environmentalists of the right who try to portray environmental issues as "lefty" issues. Though I suppose that's not really the Green party's fault.

As for zero growth, infinite economic growth on a finite planet is not sustainable or possible long term in its current form. Maybe Green proposals aren't brilliant, but they have correctly identified quite a big problem that should not be brushed aside. Why should the environment always come in second to "economic growth", which is how it is at the moment?

I actually find that the Green party's policy to give prisoners the vote and its frankly idiotic foreign and military policy (Lucas voted against air strikes on ISIS in Iraq) are far bigger problems for me.


You raise good points in your last paragraph. But I don't think you quite understand how horrendous permanent recession would be lol?
Original post by reallydontknow
Contribution to society is subjective.

If somebody has paid to watch a footballer and they don't get paid that much, then the money will go. To the even richer owners, not to farmers.

Oh so you'd ban things that people like just because you dislike them and think they are "unfair"?

People are free to spend their money however they want if they want to pay footballers wages that is their choice and it is not their obligation to give to charity or anything of the sort.

You can't just pay cleaners and farmers loads of money, the government doesn't have that sort of money, but footballers can be paid that much as it is a private business paying them and they can pay them however much or however little they want to.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Contribution to society is not subjective. It is objectively measure din money for a start. Now, that doesn't mean people can wrongly misinterpret the contribution of certain things to society. I would agree that footballer's contributions are overrated, but people are dumb.

People in general throw the word subjective around far too often now-a-days without fully understanding its meaning. To say that contribution to society is subjective would make economics quite pointless.
So many people on this thread are making the following 2 fallacies:

1) That Earth is the only possible source of resources - ignoring entirely the rest of the Solar System and indeed the universe

2) That a finite resource availability means that we need to go to 0% growth absolutely right this moment or else impending doom and disaster.

Also unbelievable how many people think that economic growth doesn't help the poor. Hint: compare the poor of any country in the world today to that of 500, or even 50, years ago. Only those countries purposely run into the ground e.g. North Korea, or in extreme conflict zones e.g. Somalia, have their poor worse off.
Original post by Green_Pink
Alternatively, you keep 10 people on working half as many hours each, they make just as much, the economy stays the same size and they have much more time for recreation, family and personal development rather than sitting in an office doing not-very-much as a middle manager. In theory it isn't a bad idea.


But those ten people fall behind those other people working for a different company.

All
Of a sudden yiuve developed a different pay stream.
Original post by MatureStudent36
But those ten people fall behind those other people working for a different company.

All
Of a sudden yiuve developed a different pay stream.


True, hence why I would say it's pretty incompatible with the free market school of economics. It's just part of an entirely different way of thinking which prioritises quality of life over competition. The Greens are if anything more ambitious and radical than people realise - I would argue many of their members and policies are in effect anti-capitalist, rather than just Old Labour-style reformism.
Original post by ClickItBack
So many people on this thread are making the following 2 fallacies:

1) That Earth is the only possible source of resources - ignoring entirely the rest of the Solar System and indeed the universe

2) That a finite resource availability means that we need to go to 0% growth absolutely right this moment or else impending doom and disaster.

Also unbelievable how many people think that economic growth doesn't help the poor. Hint: compare the poor of any country in the world today to that of 500, or even 50, years ago. Only those countries purposely run into the ground e.g. North Korea, or in extreme conflict zones e.g. Somalia, have their poor worse off.


Your second point has no relevance to Green policy. They don't propose 0% growth right now, they just support the idea that we should establish how a zero-growth economy could function should it be necessary for sustainability in the future.
Original post by Green_Pink
True, hence why I would say it's pretty incompatible with the free market school of economics. It's just part of an entirely different way of thinking which prioritises quality of life over competition. The Greens are if anything more ambitious and radical than people realise - I would argue many of their members and policies are in effect anti-capitalist, rather than just Old Labour-style reformism.

Your second point has no relevance to Green policy. They don't propose 0% growth right now, they just support the idea that we should establish how a zero-growth economy could function should it be necessary for sustainability in the future.


I'd agree that the greens are radical.

Fascism was radical.

Communism was radical.

I'm not going to criticise them for being radical.
I'll cruticise them for being dangerous.
Original post by Green_Pink
True, hence why I would say it's pretty incompatible with the free market school of economics. It's just part of an entirely different way of thinking which prioritises quality of life over competition. The Greens are if anything more ambitious and radical than people realise - I would argue many of their members and policies are in effect anti-capitalist, rather than just Old Labour-style reformism.

Your second point has no relevance to Green policy. They don't propose 0% growth right now, they just support the idea that we should establish how a zero-growth economy could function should it be necessary for sustainability in the future.


I don't really think this is something that makes sense to do though.

Imagine if 100 years ago people tried to construct an idea of what a 0% growth economy might look like. With no concept of computers, modern telecommunications, Internet, advances in materials and (green) travel technologies . . . they'd probably propose an environment with no cars, no railways, reduced to non-existent usage of telegraph etc. When we now know that it is entirely possible to make e.g. solar or hydrogen-powered vehicles (albeit fairly crappy at the moment), and our efficiency of data transfer is like a billion orders of magnitude higher via the Internet than via telegraph.

Whatever proposals for a 0% economy are made right now will be similarly short-sighted and will look ridiculous as and when technology is improved and new scientific breakthroughs are made.
Original post by MatureStudent36
I'd agree that the greens are radical.

Fascism was radical.

Communism was radical.

I'm not going to criticise them for being radical.
I'll cruticise them for being dangerous.


Fair enough :smile: Personally I think a lot of what the Greens want to do is a bit naive to say the least and not really practical, but I do appreciate them opening the debate much wider than what's been offered to us by the four larger parties in England and think that some (not all) of their ideas are worthy of serious consideration.

Original post by ClickItBack
I don't really think this is something that makes sense to do though.

Imagine if 100 years ago people tried to construct an idea of what a 0% growth economy might look like. With no concept of computers, modern telecommunications, Internet, advances in materials and (green) travel technologies . . . they'd probably propose an environment with no cars, no railways, reduced to non-existent usage of telegraph etc. When we now know that it is entirely possible to make e.g. solar or hydrogen-powered vehicles (albeit fairly crappy at the moment), and our efficiency of data transfer is like a billion orders of magnitude higher via the Internet than via telegraph.

Whatever proposals for a 0% economy are made right now will be similarly short-sighted and will look ridiculous as and when technology is improved and new scientific breakthroughs are made.


I agree :smile: Capitalism has definitely improved the lives of most people across the world, and can continue to do so. That's not to say we shouldn't manage its worse excesses and make sure that it works in the interests of the people - especially in sectors where we are looking for accessibility rather than innovation - but I wouldn't support any alternative that doesn't allow for and encourage technological advances. I'm just debating the ideas, I'm not actually a Green supporter myself.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Contribution to society is not subjective. It is objectively measure din money for a start. Now, that doesn't mean people can wrongly misinterpret the contribution of certain things to society. I would agree that footballer's contributions are overrated, but people are dumb.

People in general throw the word subjective around far too often now-a-days without fully understanding its meaning. To say that contribution to society is subjective would make economics quite pointless.



It depends what you think is positive contribution to society and what you value more, it is subjective.

For example, let's say a cleaner and a teacher, who contributed more, I value people being educated so I'd say a teacher but somebody who values clean streets may well say a teacher.

But anyway the fact is that it doesn't matter how much you contribute to society, if thousands of people are willing to pay to see you kick a ball around for 90 minutes then you deserve that amount of money

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by missfats
at least vote for the socialists - labour.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I needed a good laugh....:')

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Please say you're joking?
Labour haven't been anything close to 'socialist' since Atlee.
Original post by jammy4041
I needed a good laugh....:')

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Please say you're joking?
Labour haven't been anything close to 'socialist' since Atlee.


That's because they realised that the majority of the electorate don't want it.
They now include legalising being a member of ISIS
Original post by democracyforum
They now include legalising being a member of ISIS


No, they want to criminalise people's actions instead of criminalising people's thoughts. Why are you in favour of the thought police?
Original post by DaveSmith99
No, they want to criminalise people's actions instead of criminalising people's thoughts. Why are you in favour of the thought police?


Action follows thought
Original post by democracyforum
Action follows thought


But you cannot punish somebody for their thoughts. That's just ridiculous

Posted from TSR Mobile
Andrew Neil dissects shambolic Green Party policy in a humiliating interview.

Assassination begins at 4:10.

[video="youtube;5dFn8RIXOBE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dFn8RIXOBE[/video]
Original post by reallydontknow
But you cannot punish somebody for their thoughts. That's just ridiculous

Posted from TSR Mobile


It depends on the case, each case needs to be looked at an individual level by a judge and jury.

Quick Reply

Latest