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

Most of the main Green policies are terrifying watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    their morality is questionable but their society was perfect.

    But it has never been tried before.

    again money isn't the only incentive in modern society. People are changing, we are becoming more community focused and eventually we will achieve perfection. We need idealism in order to change.
    a zero growth economy is a sustainable one. And money isn't everything.

    I cannot believe you are arguing that the borg collective is a model society, can you honestly say that you would be happy to live in the borg collective? A society that was written to essentially represent pure evil is something you are calling perfect?

    Yes money is the best incentive, if you deny this then you are being idealistic and naive. If a worker is not being rewarded for extra work, then what is the incentive to do the extra work? Let's assume you are working 8 hours doing a job you dislike. Now you have the option to do an additional hour every week which will improve your company but you will receive no tangible reward for your trouble. Are you honestly saying you would do that extra hour? I don't believe you, but let's say you actually would, would anyone else? No. What you are arguing for is insane, competition is a powerful force and it is a force for good. Do you know what caused the biggest mass lift out of poverty the planet has ever seen? It was China deciding to become more capitalist.

    And yes it has been tried before, and it has failed every time, while capitalism has succeeded beyond wildest expectations. And I am not even suggesting extreme capitalism just moderate amounts that make a country successful.

    The only way a zero growth economy is sustainable is if there is a population drain from the country. The hillarious thing is though that the Greens want to increase immigration!
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    I cannot believe you are arguing that the borg collective is a model society, can you honestly say that you would be happy to live in the borg collective? A society that was written to essentially represent pure evil is something you are calling perfect?
    a society is no evil just different. And yes it was harmonious and with everyone working for the colective it is perfect.

    Yes money is the best incentive, if you deny this then you are being idealistic and naive. If a worker is not being rewarded for extra work, then what is the incentive to do the extra work? Let's assume you are working 8 hours doing a job you dislike. Now you have the option to do an additional hour every week which will improve your company but you will receive no tangible reward for your trouble. Are you honestly saying you would do that extra hour? I don't believe you, but let's say you actually would, would anyone else? No. What you are arguing for is insane, competition is a powerful force and it is a force for good. Do you know what caused the biggest mass lift out of poverty the planet has ever seen? It was China deciding to become more capitalist.
    well not really! protecting a loved one would be bigger incentive. And yes I would, if that meant doing my work to a higher standard I would. Also by your logic people wouldn't volunteer because they would expect to be paid. That quite clearly isn't the case. There are far better incentivisers then money. Oh and is this the same china with the massive poverty gap? The one where the money is focused in a few people and most people are poor?

    And yes it has been tried before, and it has failed every time, while capitalism has succeeded beyond wildest expectations. And I am not even suggesting extreme capitalism just moderate amounts that make a country successful

    The only way a zero growth economy is sustainable is if there is a population drain from the country. The hillarious thing is though that the Greens want to increase immigration!
    The greens don't want to increase immigration. They just simply believe that we have no right to keep people out based on where they were born. Why are we better or more deserving to live in this country just because we happened to be born where we were? Borders and countries are archaic principles that be long in the past instead we should be working as one human race, one global community.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    a society is no evil just different. And yes it was harmonious and with everyone working for the colective it is perfect.
    Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?

    (Original post by Aph)
    well not really! protecting a loved one would be bigger incentive. And yes I would, if that meant doing my work to a higher standard I would. Also by your logic people wouldn't volunteer because they would expect to be paid. That quite clearly isn't the case. There are far better incentivisers then money. Oh and is this the same china with the massive poverty gap? The one where the money is focused in a few people and most people are poor?
    No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.

    China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.

    China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.

    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    The only way a zero growth economy is sustainable is if there is a population drain from the country. The hillarious thing is though that the Greens want to increase immigration!
    At least they'd turn the country into such a dump that no one would want to come here.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    a society is no evil just different. And yes it was harmonious and with everyone working for the colective it is perfect.

    well not really! protecting a loved one would be bigger incentive. And yes I would, if that meant doing my work to a higher standard I would. Also by your logic people wouldn't volunteer because they would expect to be paid. That quite clearly isn't the case. There are far better incentivisers then money. Oh and is this the same china with the massive poverty gap? The one where the money is focused in a few people and most people are poor?


    The greens don't want to increase immigration. They just simply believe that we have no right to keep people out based on where they were born. Why are we better or more deserving to live in this country just because we happened to be born where we were? Borders and countries are archaic principles that be long in the past instead we should be working as one human race, one global community.

    Lol, you really do sound like a sixth form version of me!

    a) Would you volunteer to live in a borg collective then? To have your individuality expunged? To participate in the destruction of other free civilizations? To completely lack self worth and whose only purpose is to be a disposable pawn?
    You know the borg collective does exist, its called North Korea. And it is literally hell on earth for those that live there. Well unless you happen to be the Borg Queen (Kim jon un).

    b) Are you actually implying you want a civilization where something like the gestapo is used as an incentive? If not what the hell are you saying? Let's go over this again, working the extra hour does not confer any benefit to you, so obviously your family does not benefit financially either. So what then? Why would you do it? If the only answer is to stop the state from hurting your family, then you want to live in a terrifying world. Again it sounds like bloody North korea.

    c) This is the same China where capitalism, and I'm going to say this again. Caused the GREATEST LIFT OUT OF POVERTY EVER! Let me say that again. The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen. One more time The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen!. So yeh, stuff the wage gap, I don't care. I happen to think it is repugnant to want to wish poverty on others in order to decrease the wage gap. Its like enacting a policy to make smoking compulsory for the middle class to lower the health gap. Because that would literally be the best way of doing it!

    d) Same thing, the Green party would have increased immigration, and in a zero growth economy the result would be mass poverty (except ironically for the super rich). They are economically illiterate, even Labour would admit this, and Gordan brown did a pretty good job of screwing us all over.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?


    No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.

    China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.

    China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.


    At least they'd turn the country into such a dump that no one would want to come here.
    Yeh,exactly. I really don't get how people can be so resistant to the idea of the free market given its fantastic reputation. And people that say "THIS time", I'm sorry but no, if you want to be a guinea pig then fine, but I'm sticking to a system that is tried and works.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?
    but if everyone puts the collective first then no one would be lazy...


    No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.
    there are plenty of incentives, it might surprise you that some people actually like working and would actually hate to do nothing all their life.

    China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.
    what 'violent power of the state'? and no, poverty is reduced by stopping the super-rich exploiting everyone.

    China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.
    and surely you should know that most of that money will just end up in the hands of the already rich and wont help many people at all.

    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    a) Would you volunteer to live in a borg collective then? To have your individuality expunged? To participate in the destruction of other free civilizations? To completely lack self worth and whose only purpose is to be a disposable pawn?
    You know the borg collective does exist, its called North Korea. And it is literally hell on earth for those that live there. Well unless you happen to be the Borg Queen (Kim jon un).
    north Korea is clasicly-comunist. I support a more anarchic way of thinking and believe that the power to make decisions should be via direct democracy not in the hands of one man so would I join the borg? no, because I cannot align with their morality but I admire their society. and again no, I would not live in north Korea because I don't support dictatorships.

    b) Are you actually implying you want a civilization where something like the gestapo is used as an incentive? If not what the hell are you saying? Let's go over this again, working the extra hour does not confer any benefit to you, so obviously your family does not benefit financially either. So what then? Why would you do it? If the only answer is to stop the state from hurting your family, then you want to live in a terrifying world. Again it sounds like bloody North korea.
    no, no one should be forced to do anything, I would stay behind because I take pride in my work and hate to leave anything unfinished. I would do it because so long as I didn't have prior commitments it would be the best use of my time.

    c) This is the same China where capitalism, and I'm going to say this again. Caused the GREATEST LIFT OUT OF POVERTY EVER! Let me say that again. The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen. One more time The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen!. So yeh, stuff the wage gap, I don't care. I happen to think it is repugnant to want to wish poverty on others in order to decrease the wage gap. Its like enacting a policy to make smoking compulsory for the middle class to lower the health gap. Because that would literally be the best way of doing it!
    why are you so insistent that everyone would become poorer? and are you telling me that you care that you could be working 9-5 on minimum wage when some tycoon how doesn't even manage the day-to-day is sitting at a poolside sipping martinis and making millions and hour? for doing far less?

    d) Same thing, the Green party would have increased immigration, and in a zero growth economy the result would be mass poverty (except ironically for the super rich). They are economically illiterate, even Labour would admit this, and Gordan brown did a pretty good job of screwing us all over.
    well the alternative is having everyone believing we are better so I don't see an issue. plus the ultimate objective is a 0 growth economy THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY but to begin to get to that point.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    but if everyone puts the collective first then no one would be lazy...


    there are plenty of incentives, it might surprise you that some people actually like working and would actually hate to do nothing all their life.

    what 'violent power of the state'? and no, poverty is reduced by stopping the super-rich exploiting everyone.

    and surely you should know that most of that money will just end up in the hands of the already rich and wont help many people at all.

    north Korea is clasicly-comunist. I support a more anarchic way of thinking and believe that the power to make decisions should be via direct democracy not in the hands of one man so would I join the borg? no, because I cannot align with their morality but I admire their society. and again no, I would not live in north Korea because I don't support dictatorships.

    no, no one should be forced to do anything, I would stay behind because I take pride in my work and hate to leave anything unfinished. I would do it because so long as I didn't have prior commitments it would be the best use of my time.

    why are you so insistent that everyone would become poorer? and are you telling me that you care that you could be working 9-5 on minimum wage when some tycoon how doesn't even manage the day-to-day is sitting at a poolside sipping martinis and making millions and hour? for doing far less?

    well the alternative is having everyone believing we are better so I don't see an issue. plus the ultimate objective is a 0 growth economy THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY but to begin to get to that point.

    Sigh. You arn't taking in anything I have been saying

    Lets take that example again. You work 8 hours per day on a fixed wage, you have the option of working an extra hour every day. It will benefit the 'collective' but there will be no benefit at all for you or your family. Even if you would do it, the vast majority of people wouldn't do work that confers no rewards to themselves. Notice how volunteers tend to be people that are already well off. If you are someone working the minimum wage I can tell you categorically you are not going to work another hour for no reward.

    And I mentioned violent power of the state because you mentioned something about your family being an incentive. What the hell is that supposed to imply if not a threat from the state? Please tell me..

    North Korea isn't communist, its Juche. You do realize that, as I keep telling you, the more communist you make a country the worse the dictatorships become! Capitalism has actually brought the first vestiges of democracy to China, and it is likely in 30 years time, that it will go further.

    I am insistent that everyone would become poorer, because that is exactly what will happen. And you keep going on about how the wage gap is more important than the average wealth of the individual. it isn't! You seem to have an envy for the super-rich that you can use to justify making poor people even poorer. Again, answer this point, why are you more concerned about the wage gap in china versus the incredible gain in wealth and improvement in life quality of the poor?

    And lol to the sustainable economy point. Fossil fuels arn't sustainable. Let's remove them entirely from the UK, and see what happens. It must be a good thing though, because they arn't sustainable! I'm well aware that an economy can't grow indefinitely, but I am prepared to wait until we have better technology and infrastructure and a population that isn't increasing. Because yes, a zero growth economy isn't possible with a growing population. If we were to have one now, we'd bankrupt the country within 4 years. Fantastic.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

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

    Lets take that example again. You work 8 hours per day on a fixed wage, you have the option of working an extra hour every day. It will benefit the 'collective' but there will be no benefit at all for you or your family. Even if you would do it, the vast majority of people wouldn't do work that confers no rewards to themselves. Notice how volunteers tend to be people that are already well off. If you are someone working the minimum wage I can tell you categorically you are not going to work another hour for no reward.
    actually you might! I know loads of people who work at minimum wage and always go above and beyond what is asked of them. You have too little faith in humanity.

    And I mentioned violent power of the state because you mentioned something about your family being an incentive. What the hell is that supposed to imply if not a threat from the state? Please tell me..
    well no you didn't the other guy did??? and it was just to prove that money isn't the dest incentive.

    North Korea isn't communist, its Juche. You do realize that, as I keep telling you, the more communist you make a country the worse the dictatorships become! Capitalism has actually brought the first vestiges of democracy to China, and it is likely in 30 years time, that it will go further.
    that does not have to be the case. And right now we live in a dictatorship really where a tiny minority of the very rich have almost all the power. I envisage a Communist country with no leader at all and where everyone is voice is equal. That to me is perfection and that to me is what the Borg are.

    I am insistent that everyone would become poorer, because that is exactly what will happen. And you keep going on about how the wage gap is more important than the average wealth of the individual. it isn't! You seem to have an envy for the super-rich that you can use to justify making poor people even poorer. Again, answer this point, why are you more concerned about the wage gap in china versus the incredible gain in wealth and improvement in life quality of the poor?
    we should not need the super rich as they are called to give the poor money. If we rely on the super rich for everything then they have all the power and it makes a very very unfair society.

    And lol to the sustainable economy point. Fossil fuels arn't sustainable. Let's remove them entirely from the UK, and see what happens. It must be a good thing though, because they arn't sustainable! I'm well aware that an economy can't grow indefinitely, but I am prepared to wait until we have better technology and infrastructure and a population that isn't increasing. Because yes, a zero growth economy isn't possible with a growing population. If we were to have one now, we'd bankrupt the country within 4 years. Fantastic.
    The environment and the people are far more important than money. We can get along without money if we have too. we cannot get along in a polluted environment that will kill us. I've much rather be poor and only have the basics then dead and I think you agree.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    actually you might! I know loads of people who work at minimum wage and always go above and beyond what is asked of them. You have too little faith in humanity.

    well no you didn't the other guy did??? and it was just to prove that money isn't the dest incentive.

    that does not have to be the case. And right now we live in a dictatorship really where a tiny minority of the very rich have almost all the power. I envisage a Communist country with no leader at all and where everyone is voice is equal. That to me is perfection and that to me is what the Borg are.

    we should not need the super rich as they are called to give the poor money. If we rely on the super rich for everything then they have all the power and it makes a very very unfair society.

    The environment and the people are far more important than money. We can get along without money if we have too. we cannot get along in a polluted environment that will kill us. I've much rather be poor and only have the basics then dead and I think you agree.
    Can you at least try to be open minded?

    a) Fine so you know some people that work the minimum wage and do more, nevertheless that is the exception not the rule. Do you have an iphone? For that matter do you have any sort of phone? Well you should know in the 1970s the State controlled all phone companies? The result? Stagnation and **** phones. The same is true of every industry, competition is what fuels progress. If a company knows it has to be the best to survive, then that is a damn good incentive to be the best. Its very much like evolution/natural selection, only the best survives. Everyone cooperating on the same thing sounds good in practice, but with a lack of competition the worst is the best. And that's all there is to it, there is simply no point in making the product better. Note that sometimes its not even possible to tell what the best is, the beauty of a capitalist system is that you get a natural selection of the best. Anyway your point about me having a lack of faith in humanity is just true, deny it all you like, be idealistic and naive. But just tell me, if your view is correct, then why is capitalism so bloody successful and communism is nearly always hell on earth?


    b) FFS we do not live in a dictatorship. This is a lie, and an irritating one at that. Go to a real dictatorship and then tell me we live in one. This is a serious conversation, stop being so childish. And you are still blabbering on about the very rich without even acknoleging these points which I have made over and over again:

    1) The wage gap doesn't matter, the average wealth and the proportion of people that are poor does.

    2) ALL societies have an elite super-rich class with the exception or primitive tribal cultures with populations under 100.

    3) The super-rich actually do a hell of a lot of good, their taxes lift the poor out of poverty and the process that allows them to become super-rich helps the economy

    What you are spouting is russel brandian nonsense.

    c) No we can't get a long without money, again a complete lie. Name a single advanced civilization that does. Oh right we have to go back thousands of years to find one. What you are proposing is a civilization that can support thousands or at most hundreds of thousands. We have a population of 7 billion. It won't work. Oh and if you care about the environment then capitalism is the best chance we have to get renewable technologies that can help.

    Sigh, can someone else step into this conversation. Its getting absurd.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    but if everyone puts the collective first then no one would be lazy...
    How do you achieve that? What is to stop people from not putting the collective first? How do you even define the collective?

    (Original post by Aph)
    there are plenty of incentives, it might surprise you that some people actually like working and would actually hate to do nothing all their life.
    Yes, plenty of people enjoy the work that they do and enjoy doing productive things with their day, I'm not saying otherwise or that money or material wealth is the only thing that motivate people. There is also the issue that you haven't addressed of how does the most undesirable or dangerous jobs if no one can paid more for those jobs as compared to the really fun or easy ones?

    (Original post by Aph)
    what 'violent power of the state'?
    You seem very confused if you cannot understand that the state is essentially a monopoly on "legitimate" violence within a given geographical area.

    What happens if I don't pay taxes? I'll be thrown in jail obviously which is clearly an act of violence, whether justified or not.

    What happens if I sell something currently illegal like heroin? I'll be thrown in jail.

    What happens if I start a unlicensed taxi service? I'll be thrown in jail.

    What happens if I resist arrest? I'll be shot.

    How is this not violent? You think the state is some voluntary union that we all sign up for?

    It's really bizarre and worrying that you don't even seem to understand the institution that you want running the whole economy. It is my opinion that voluntary and mutual interaction is a far better way of solving complex social problems like poverty or racism or whatever than the use of violence by the state.

    (Original post by Aph)
    and no, poverty is reduced by stopping the super-rich exploiting everyone.
    The main way the super-rich exploit people nowadays is because of the large state. If the state were smaller and we had a different monetary system, exploitation would become much harder. The only way you can give a business your backing is if you pay for its services. There are ways such as boycotts to force businesses which harm your interests to change.

    (Original post by Aph)
    The environment and the people are far more important than money. We can get along without money if we have too. we cannot get along in a polluted environment that will kill us. I've much rather be poor and only have the basics then dead and I think you agree.
    You seem to assume that government is automatically better at protecting the environment which I would say is patently false. States are the biggest polluters in the world, not private businesses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    Sigh, can someone else step into this conversation. Its getting absurd.
    Ha it's pretty ridiculous. He doesn't even seem to understand what the state is, yet he wants it running all of the economy and many other things in society.

    If he really wants to improve the lives of poor people, he should start or join a charity. Another thing he could do is invent labour saving devices which allow us to direct resources into other areas and is how we advance as society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    The main way the super-rich exploit people nowadays is because of the large state. If the state were smaller and we had a different monetary system, exploitation would become much harder.
    I think you're going to have to elaborate on this one.

    You seem to assume that government is automatically better at protecting the environment which I would say is patently false. States are the biggest polluters in the world, not private businesses.
    Do you have a source for this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?


    No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.

    China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.

    China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.


    At least they'd turn the country into such a dump that no one would want to come here.
    To be fair though it's only a fraction of their population. The economic policies that have been so successful in urban China haven't reached the rural population.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I think you're going to have to elaborate on this one.
    An example would be how our central banks continuously inflates the money supply which hurts the poor the most as the purchasing power of the currency is less so those with less to begin with are squeezed even further. Another example which is closely linked to that is stuff like the bank bailouts. These policies actually increase the gap between rich and poor and are a direct result of government intervention in the economy and control of the money supply.

    I presume you are a socialist or socialist-leaning, correct? I think we would agree on many things such as that the balance of political power is heavily towards the rich. We just disagree on the solution.

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Do you have a source for this?
    Nope, sorry. Saw it in a youtube video which obviously isn't a good source but I can't go searching to check it's validity as I'm already procrastinating as it is. I'll retract that remark but I would make the point that aph seems to assume that government is necessarily better at protecting the environment when I don't believe there is much evidence for that assertion. We can also look at the terrible environmental record of the Soviet Union to see that getting rid of the profit motive and the private ownership of the means of the production is no guarantee of great environmental policy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    To be fair though it's only a fraction of their population. The economic policies that have been so successful in urban China haven't reached the rural population.
    Yeah, that's a fair point. I would definitely not agree with the idea that we should copy everything China does but in many ways they are actually less socialist than us as their state spends a smaller proportion of the national GDP than ours does.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by QuantumOverlord)
    Can you at least try to be open minded?
    i am. You just aren't convincing.

    a) Fine so you know some people that work the minimum wage and do more, nevertheless that is the exception not the rule. Do you have an iphone? For that matter do you have any sort of phone? Well you should know in the 1970s the State controlled all phone companies? The result? Stagnation and **** phones. The same is true of every industry, competition is what fuels progress. If a company knows it has to be the best to survive, then that is a damn good incentive to be the best. Its very much like evolution/natural selection, only the best survives. Everyone cooperating on the same thing sounds good in practice, but with a lack of competition the worst is the best. And that's all there is to it, there is simply no point in making the product better. Note that sometimes its not even possible to tell what the best is, the beauty of a capitalist system is that you get a natural selection of the best. Anyway your point about me having a lack of faith in humanity is just true, deny it all you like, be idealistic and naive. But just tell me, if your view is correct, then why is capitalism so bloody successful and communism is nearly always hell on earth?
    because of dictators. As I have said for the millionth time now I believe in power of the people and there is nothing to say that competition cannot exist in a non-Capitalist society. People are naturally competitive and outcompete to be the best at something. Science new song on because people want to learn not because money drives it.


    b) FFS we do not live in a dictatorship. This is a lie, and an irritating one at that. Go to a real dictatorship and then tell me we live in one. This is a serious conversation, stop being so childish. And you are still blabbering on about the very rich without even acknoleging these points which I have made over and over again:

    1) The wage gap doesn't matter, the average wealth and the proportion of people that are poor does.

    2) ALL societies have an elite super-rich class with the exception or primitive tribal cultures with populations under 100.

    3) The super-rich actually do a hell of a lot of good, their taxes lift the poor out of poverty and the process that allows them to become super-rich helps the economy
    any society where power is in the hands of the few elite is a dictatorship. The UK fits that criteria so whether you like it or not the UK is a dictatorship. And I think you find the super rich avoid paying taxes and all they care about is money they are a drain on society and should not be tolerated.

    c) No we can't get a long without money, again a complete lie. Name a single advanced civilization that does. Oh right we have to go back thousands of years to find one. What you are proposing is a civilization that can support thousands or at most hundreds of thousands. We have a population of 7 billion. It won't work. Oh and if you care about the environment then capitalism is the best chance we have to get renewable technologies that can help.

    Sigh, can someone else step into this conversation. Its getting absurd.
    One that is like suggesting back when you were dominated the vacuum market that any other vacuum was rubbish and then and then along came Dyson and changed all that. Just because something is old and has been around a long time does not mean that it is good. And again you do not need money for scientific advancement scientists like researching because they enjoy it not because they need monetary incentive. If it weren't for capitalism we would have gone all green by now. But as it stands people care far too much about money as opposed to the environment.
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    How do you achieve that? What is to stop people from not putting the collective first? How do you even define the collective?
    in the next 50 years to have computers that can go inside your body. When that happens we will not need to talk any more because we can just communicate telepathically. That is when a utopian society where everyone understands each other and gets along will be achieved.


    Yes, plenty of people enjoy the work that they do and enjoy doing productive things with their day, I'm not saying otherwise or that money or material wealth is the only thing that motivate people. There is also the issue that you haven't addressed of how does the most undesirable or dangerous jobs if no one can paid more for those jobs as compared to the really fun or easy ones?
    like cleaning? Well either robots or I'm sure after a few months people will come together and care.


    You seem very confused if you cannot understand that the state is essentially a monopoly on "legitimate" violence within a given geographical area.

    What happens if I don't pay taxes? I'll be thrown in jail obviously which is clearly an act of violence, whether justified or not.

    What happens if I sell something currently illegal like heroin? I'll be thrown in jail.

    What happens if I start a unlicensed taxi service? I'll be thrown in jail.

    What happens if I resist arrest? I'll be shot.

    How is this not violent? You think the state is some voluntary union that we all sign up for?

    It's really bizarre and worrying that you don't even seem to understand the institution that you want running the whole economy. It is my opinion that voluntary and mutual interaction is a far better way of solving complex social problems like poverty or racism or whatever than the use of violence by the state.
    oh now I understand that completely. I just wasn't sure what you actually meant when you said what you said. And if you had read of things that I said I don't believe in a state I think the state should be abolished.


    The main way the super-rich exploit people nowadays is because of the large state. If the state were smaller and we had a different monetary system, exploitation would become much harder. The only way you can give a business your backing is if you pay for its services. There are ways such as boycotts to force businesses which harm your interests to change.
    im sorry but that nonsensical. The state protects people, if it weren't for the state I'm sure we would all not have health care, rights, the minimum wage, the powerful have always exploited tge weak all thoughout history.


    You seem to assume that government is automatically better at protecting the environment which I would say is patently false. States are the biggest polluters in the world, not private businesses.
    they are the biggest polluters because they have to work with money. If they didn't need money they could switch to green overnight.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    i am. You just aren't convincing.

    because of dictators. As I have said for the millionth time now I believe in power of the people and there is nothing to say that competition cannot exist in a non-Capitalist society. People are naturally competitive and outcompete to be the best at something. Science new song on because people want to learn not because money drives it.


    any society where power is in the hands of the few elite is a dictatorship. The UK fits that criteria so whether you like it or not the UK is a dictatorship. And I think you find the super rich avoid paying taxes and all they care about is money they are a drain on society and should not be tolerated.


    One that is like suggesting back when you were dominated the vacuum market that any other vacuum was rubbish and then and then along came Dyson and changed all that. Just because something is old and has been around a long time does not mean that it is good. And again you do not need money for scientific advancement scientists like researching because they enjoy it not because they need monetary incentive. If it weren't for capitalism we would have gone all green by now. But as it stands people care far too much about money as opposed to the environment.
    in the next 50 years to have computers that can go inside your body. When that happens we will not need to talk any more because we can just communicate telepathically. That is when a utopian society where everyone understands each other and gets along will be achieved.


    like cleaning? Well either robots or I'm sure after a few months people will come together and care.


    oh now I understand that completely. I just wasn't sure what you actually meant when you said what you said. And if you had read of things that I said I don't believe in a state I think the state should be abolished.


    im sorry but that nonsensical. The state protects people, if it weren't for the state I'm sure we would all not have health care, rights, the minimum wage, the powerful have always exploited tge weak all thoughout history.


    they are the biggest polluters because they have to work with money. If they didn't need money they could switch to green overnight.
    We don't live in a dictatorship that's idiotic.

    A dictatorship is a country rules by a dictator (a ruler with total power) we do not have this and therefore are not a dictatorship.

    In every society some people will have more power than others. Even in a caveman society the strongest person had the most power, or maybe the most intelligent.

    And anyway, tax avoidance is fully legal, anybody can do it. Tax evasion is illegal, and anybody who does this gets caught out and punished, but most people do not do this, they go by legal means in way of loopholes. If you're so bothered what needs changing is the law.

    The super rich aren't a drain on society. They contribute more than you and use less than you, they use private healthcare etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Mighty_Bush)
    An example would be how our central banks continuously inflates the money supply which hurts the poor the most as the purchasing power of the currency is less so those with less to begin with are squeezed even further. Another example which is closely linked to that is stuff like the bank bailouts. These policies actually increase the gap between rich and poor and are a direct result of government intervention in the economy and control of the money supply.

    I presume you are a socialist or socialist-leaning, correct? I think we would agree on many things such as that the balance of political power is heavily towards the rich. We just disagree on the solution.
    But isn't this all the result of monetarist, neoliberal philosophy? I don't think it's really fair to bring these examples to bear against people who presumably don't support these policies anyway - being as they exist to prop up the capitalist system they oppose. Besides, I don't think the examples you gave amount to exploitation - they are more like examples of the ways in which neoliberal policy hurt the poor and reward the rich. Exploitation would be things like using child labour, paying employees exclusively in tokens valid only in the company store, extremely low wages (or wages in general, depending on how far left you are) - anything that takes advantage of the workers' economic vulnerabilities. These are all things that existed but the state stepped in to prevent.

    Nope, sorry. Saw it in a youtube video which obviously isn't a good source but I can't go searching to check it's validity as I'm already procrastinating as it is. I'll retract that remark but I would make the point that aph seems to assume that government is necessarily better at protecting the environment when I don't believe there is much evidence for that assertion. We can also look at the terrible environmental record of the Soviet Union to see that getting rid of the profit motive and the private ownership of the means of the production is no guarantee of great environmental policy.
    While it's true that governments do not necessarily have great environmental policy, most governments in the Western World are at least taking some form of action against climate change. Only states have the comprehensive regulatory power needed to enforce cleaner, more sustainable environmental policies - businesses do not. I see no reason to believe big business would sufficiently regulate itself to combat environmental destruction. There is simply no incentive.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    We don't live in a dictatorship that's idiotic.

    A dictatorship is a country rules by a dictator (a ruler with total power) we do not have this and therefore are not a dictatorship.

    In every society some people will have more power than others. Even in a caveman society the strongest person had the most power, or maybe the most intelligent.

    And anyway, tax avoidance is fully legal, anybody can do it. Tax evasion is illegal, and anybody who does this gets caught out and punished, but most people do not do this, they go by legal means in way of loopholes. If you're so bothered what needs changing is the law.

    The super rich aren't a drain on society. They contribute more than you and use less than you, they use private healthcare etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't think there is any point in arguing with him anymore. Its the same nonsense about the wage gap and rich envy. He has no response to the fact that capitalism reduces poverty not the other way round. On the plus side most students are radical left wing before they grow up.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.