Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Look how many TSR people plan to vote for them! 20%. The Tories only poll 22% as well. Worst of all is Labour on 35%, people have really short memories.

    Why are young people stupid when it comes to voting?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by El-Presidente)
    Look how many TSR people plan to vote for them! 20%. The Tories only poll 22% as well. Worst of all is Labour on 35%, people have really short memories.

    Why are young people stupid when it comes to voting?
    Because they live in a bubble

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by El-Presidente)
    Look how many TSR people plan to vote for them! 20%. The Tories only poll 22% as well. Worst of all is Labour on 35%, people have really short memories.

    Why are young people stupid when it comes to voting?
    We aren't, we just aren't as hum-drum as the elderly. The only limit is your imagination:yep: and left means progress and change, right means staying still and victim blaming


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    We aren't, we just aren't as hum-drum as the elderly. The only limit is your imagination:yep: and left means progress and change, right means staying still and victim blaming


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think most people would call what you call imagination, idealistic naivety.

    Also, victim blaming? Wut!?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't vote for them because of their views on immigration. UKIP imo are a moderate party who would at least keep their promises.

    Face it the major parties are corrupt as hell they cannot be trusted with anything. I'm still amazed how many have gotten over the war in Iraq, but even immigration many were mad at Labour for that. But what have the Conservative party done? nothing, they've lied on immigration AGAIN. Yet people still vote for them it makes no sense.


    Why does the negative effect immigration has on the native population never come into consideration? I'm not talking money and jobs here because I think immigration pays for itself. The history of immigration, it's pretty much always been destructive to native populations but despite this it's always immigrant rights, never native rights. Of course a lot of migration has been to escape war, famine so it's hard to blame people who left to survive (Irish famines for example)
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    I think most people would call what you call imagination, idealistic naivety.

    Also, victim blaming? Wut!?
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    my example was right (albeit mundane)


    I never claimed that anything was wrong just that it might.

    And I am only stating my honest opinions.
    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
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    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
    I was talking about perception, and actually they aren't clearly defined.... There is an overlap in the spectrum due to Uncertanty...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In anticipating your response

    "But isn't it immoral to let the rich become richer?"

    No, because the system that allows that is the best system for stopping poverty. Again read my comment about competitiveness, this is a force which drives the economy, maximising this helps everyone, and when combined with an appropiate level of taxation (I still do agree we need a welfare system) it works well.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which data are you looking at if the gap is growing?
    I think its more a case of explaining the merits of a capitalist based economy. One thing to note is that a rich elite exists in all systems, and is pretty perverse in communist states, but it is true that capitalism can increase the gap between the upper middle class and the poor (although you are right, that it doesn't mean it will increase indefinitely). What I am pointing out is that the wealth gap is entirely unimportant, and at best a distraction because no one would really rather live in a world where everyone is dirt poor, vs a world where some are fairly well off and some are super rich.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh I think this very naive idealistic thinking is fairly common among young adults and students in particular. I know I was once very left wing. The problem is, while it sounds good in theory, in practice it simply does not work.

    If the greens got into power, then our economy would collapse. I find it very disturbing the Green party actually *likes* the idea of a depreciating economy.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which data are you looking at if the gap is growing?
    Generally BBC stuff.
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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

    Thing is though, I don't possibly hope to convince you otherwise, the fact that what you say isn't true, and is simply 'bad' economics, won't make much of a difference because humans in general are very biased towards held beliefs. I used to be a climate change denier and despite being shown evidence to the contrary that stuck around for years - thankfully I got over it.

    But look, a welfare state is not a bad thing, taxation is not a bad thing either and I wouldnt argue that. With captalism you can go too extreme, but extreme captalism is orders of magnitude more desirable than the other way. And moderate captalism is what causes prosperity for all.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.