Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

No it wasn't. I proved it wrong with basic science.

Colours exist and have been defined. Doesn't after what you see blue is a certain thing as is red.

Cba because you still think you're right after me showing you you're wrong.

Posted from TSR Mobile

And I'd say they are stuck in the past,

blaming the poor for being poor, ill for being ill. And blaming the weak for all our problems.

Its not about blame, but how the free market and capitalism in general makes everyone richer. Yes, it benefits the super rich the most, but it is also true that no other tried system benefits the poor more. By capitalism I do mean in moderation of course, and some elements of socialism are undoubtedly good. But the balance between communism and capitalism is definately very much skewed towards the later. Raising taxes above a certain point simply does not work. The reason? Economies are driven by competition, and if you take away too much incentive companies no longer feel the need to compete (it also leads to people exploiting loop holes and tax evasion), and when this occurs you make everyone poorer. The best system for everyone is a tax level that is low enough to allow healthy competition to thrive but high enough to help the poorer elements of society.

The point is by making everyone richer and the rich get richer faster the poor actually get comparitively poorer and that's the way in which capitalism doesn't work. And also many people see a problem and what to solve it, and most of the Importent discoveries are due to research publicly funded (uncoding DNA) and really why do we need to make coffee 10% stronger?

Herein lies the problem, comparative poverty is not what hurts people, actual poverty is. So wouldn't you rather a system where the poor are much much richer, yet the gap between them and the super rich is high, as opposed to a system where the poor are poorer but the gap is lower?

Tbh this doesn't even work that well, because you still end up with a super-rich elite in whatever system you have. The difference is, in a capitalist type system, you have less poverty. Wage inequality is not important, poverty is.

The gap is growing all the time in capitalism... Capitalism also assumes infinite growth which isn't posible. And wage inequality isn't Importent?! In what world?
I would prefer a system where polity, rich and poor were non-existent.

The gap is growing all the time in capitalism... Capitalism also assumes infinite growth which isn't posible. And wage inequality isn't Importent?! In what world?
I would prefer a system where polity, rich and poor were non-existent.

Which data are you looking at if the gap is growing?

Which data are you looking at if the gap is growing?

I'll try and be clearer, a system where rich and poor are non existent is impossible. However, a moderately captalist system is the best way of ensuring that everyone is richer across the board. This is more important than the wage gap, and yes I do not care about the wage gap at all. What matters is stopping poverty, not stopping people from getting very rich. Can't you see how immoral it is, to deny the poor wealth for the sole reason that you don't want the rich to become richer?

This is why I call your view idealistic, because there is no system where poor and rich do not exist. Like I say, moderate capitalism benefits everyone including the poor.

Generally BBC stuff.

Trickle down economics doesn't work. If the rich get richer faster the poor have less power and are seen al lower people resulting in a fall in living standards compared to the rich.

just because it doesn't exist yet doesn't mean it can't. Surely you know that.

This is demonstrably false. The economy does not work like that. As I keep saying, moderate capitalism makes everyone richer. To deny this is to turn away from the evidence.

In fact ironically it is the complete opposite. Communist societies work exactly as you have described, their economies are absolutely terrible, the money distributed is a starvation allowance, and the remnants of the economy that do survive all go towards supporting the ruling class.

Look at north Korea, communist china, the soviet union, whatever. Yet even *extreme* capitalism to the point I would disagree with is not even that bad, the most capitalist place in the world Singapore is a pretty nice place to live and certainty in the top 50 best living quality.

Perhaps this graph explains it pretty well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_bbMsNWQAAnGz7.png

1. I am not advocating comunism, but no sane person would claim that capitalism is perfect.

2. Comparitive welth determines power, if I have x amount to contribute but someone else has a thousand or a million times more I will be denied service over them because they have more power, money corrupts.

I was talking about perception, and actually they aren't clearly defined.... There is an overlap in the spectrum due to Uncertanty...

I never said capitalism is perfect, in fact I went out of my way to say it isn't. But what I did say is that it is the best system we have (in moderation) and that even extreme capitalism leads to relatively prosperous societies such as Singapore, whereas extreme socialism leads to depravity.

You do realize that the gap between the elite still exists in socialist societies? In fact anti capitalism, like I have said leads to a much smaller more powerful elite. And in general democracy tends to follow these systems, if you have a poor start you may find it harder, but it is much easier to become richer in a capitalist, free market than it is in a socialist one. But like I keep saying I do agree with a welfare state, but there becomes a point where high taxation damages everyone and makes the poor poorer, do you think increasing poverty is going to really going to increase power?

Tell adobe this.

Every colour has a classification. There are colours in the middle and they have a classification too.

To say that because you see green as red is ridiculous because it doesn't matter. Green has a different wavelength to red. Fact.

And you talk about uncertainty just because it's the only point you have. Nothing can ever be 100% but when something is almost certain then you accept it unless there is something else that is more probable. I can say it's certain nobody will every win the euro millions twice in a year if they buy one ticket for each one. And the chances are so big that im right

Posted from TSR Mobile

See I belive in direct democracy so there is no power in one person at all but rather the colective as a whole, like the Borg I see such a system as being better.

Since when do Adobe define science?
and to be quite honest you've dragged this out so much that I don't even know what this debate is about anymore.

You do realize the borg is a horrific civilisation? They were the scurge of the galaxy for a reason! In fact, why are you making my arguments for me?

Why do you see such a system as being better, when it has never worked before? When free trade and globalization reduced poverty more than almost any other factor, and communism kept the east oppressed?

The evidence is there, there is no such thing as a rich 'equal' society, but we can choose from a rich 'unequal' society, or one where you have a rich super elite and everyone else dirt poor. I think most economists would agree the optimum is a reasonable mix of socialism and communism, where the state prevents people from being poor but competitiveness fuels a healthy and prosperous economy.

Like I say, the green party would destroy our economy and everyone would get poorer, except ironically the extreme rich (who would be able to use loop holes, evasion and political power to their advantage).

It never ceases to amaze me how many people don't realise that infinite economic growth breaks the laws of physics. Zero growth is inevitable - it is literally impossible to carry on growing forever. The only sustainable society is a zero growth society. This isn't some green ideology, it's a basic fact. The article asserts that "Caroline Lucas and colleagues regard economic growth as incompatible with protecting the planet", implying it's their opinion. It isn't, it's a fact. You cannot live on a living planet with finite resources and expect growth to continue forever.

The Green Party isn't crazy for saying this, they are literally the only party that appears to be accepting the basic natural laws that we can't change. Unfortunately, it is beyond the grasp of most people that infinite growth is impossible, hence articles like these which support parties with policies that aim to defeat the laws of physics.

The Earth has enough resources to last far, far, far into the future. Also, have you heard? We can use solar power; the sun isn't going anywhere.