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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    It is all too easy to call another view a straw man one. Talk economics to me.
    But your economics was so flawed. That ten point list or whatever it was... it was laughable.

    But, okay.

    The Conservatives are going to borrow more from 2010 to 2015 than Labour in their 13 years of government. Go.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    A most excellent comment, sir.

    I agree, and I think it's very instructive that the right-wingers on this site are always angry about something. And always making things up as they go along.

    They're completely detached from reality; from facts like that the Conservatives will rack up more debt from 2010 to 2015 than Labour did in 13 years of government.

    They get quite angry at vulnerable people; disabled, people with mental illnesses, those unable to look after themselves. I find it's usually the least talented and most insecure who desperately want to kick the ladder away after they've climbed onto it.

    Those who are truly talented and secure in themselves aren't worried that helping someone else will cause them to lose it.
    Well, this is just hot air.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't support labour, I would say i'm more of a Tory.

    But in all honesty I don't give a cr*p. In 10 years time I will be living in New Zealand or Australia and not this sh*ithole excuse of a country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Well, this is just hot air.
    It's so easy to call something hot air. Talk economics or psychology to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    But your economics was so flawed. That ten point list or whatever it was... it was laughable.

    But, okay.

    The Conservatives are going to borrow more from 2010 to 2015 than Labour in their 13 years of government. Go.
    Please do go on as to how your socialist utopia trumps capitalism.

    If you couldn't tell my list was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, then I can't help you.

    You're right. I don't agree with them, either.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Because they have tried to raise the standards of living for the working class, which is the majority of us .... yes, even in the south!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by isambard kingdom brunel)
    this thread is better than stand up comedy. Who needs a dvd when you've got tsr? :e
    lool.


    Using the tsr app
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    You're right. I don't agree with them, either.
    Ahh, you would prefer we were a Friedmanite utopia.

    Like Somalia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Ahh, you would prefer we were a Friedmanite utopia.

    Like Somalia.
    What has Somalia got to do with me disagreeing with rampant borrowing? If you don't have anything of substance to say, don't say it.

    As for Friedman, he was against bloated government, a concept that has resigned millions to a life of suffering and hopelessness throughout the last century. He wasn't some sort of anarchist, like you hint at.

    If you want to throw a country at me in the hope that it sticks, try the likes of the US and South Korea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    So any taxation is socialism?
    You're putting words in my mouth. It's not the socialism I object to, it's the coercion. It infuriates me when lefties claim I've got it all wrong and that really we have a choice in whether we pay our taxes or not. I can't relate to this level of delusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    As for Friedman, he was against bloated government, a concept that has resigned millions to a life of suffering and hopelessness throughout the last century. He wasn't some sort of anarchist, like you hint at.
    You clearly know very little about Friedman. He wasn't some small government libertarian, he actually almost did verge on being an anarchist. You should watch the Free to Choose documentaries, and the discussions after. On many occasions talked about privatised police forces.

    If you want to throw a country at me in the hope that it sticks, try the likes of the US and South Korea.
    What are you talking about? The US has a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than Britain.

    And the South Korean chaebols were very much government controlled. What say you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You're putting words in my mouth. It's not the socialism I object to, it's the coercion. It infuriates me when lefties claim I've got it all wrong and that really we have a choice in whether we pay our taxes or not. I can't relate to this level of delusion.
    Who has claimed you have a choice not to pay taxes?

    Or are you confusing the fact that your consent is derived from your democratically-elected representative with your belief that you should be able to opt out of the social contract altogether?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    You clearly know very little about Friedman. He wasn't some small government libertarian, he actually almost did verge on being an anarchist. You should watch the Free to Choose documentaries, and the discussions after. On many occasions talked about privatised police forces.



    What are you talking about? The US has a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than Britain.

    And the South Korean chaebols were very much government controlled. What say you?
    I do know about Friedman. I have his books and I have watched Free to Choose countless times. He never once wanted to abolish government outright.

    I meant the US when it actually produced things and didn't just borrow for the sake of current consumption in true Keynesian style. South Korea grew from free-market orientated ideas.

    Just out of interest, what do you think got us into the global recession in the first place?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    It is all too easy to call another view a straw man one. Talk economics to me.
    Ok, I'll get back to you tomorrow. I am really*quite tired right now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    I don't believe in a London-centric UK. Maybe other things can be done there?
    Even if you don't believe that , it is the case. London has 1/8th of the UK population and 20% of the GDP!

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    From borrowing?
    Like Greece and Cyprus did and look how they ended up!

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    And council tax can be increased onto more expensive homes. And a LVT would be nice. There are all sorts of things we can do
    That would harm pensioners the most. It would be a vote loser for any politician. If you said a means based council tax you'd be making more sense!

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Studies have shown that if anyone leaves because of tax increases, it's barely anyone. Why would they? Their families live here, their businesses are here, their history has been here.
    But the fact is people still do - see the laffer curve. you also have to factor in increased tax evasion/avoidance

    See this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lion-fund.html

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    All six of them? They won't be missed,
    They will be by the treasury

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    they're not economically important
    What rubbish people who pay over 100k in income/NI per year are very important- if there were no rich people in the UK , we'd all be much poorer for it

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    , and the money we lose is made up for by that gained by higher taxes.
    Not always. If you push too far people will end up paying less tax by any means.

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Plus it increases equality, which is always good.
    Not if the money was mispent. Also the USSR had 'equality' too, everyone was poor (apart from government officials- the real champagne socialists).
    Creating a culture of dependance undermines social mobility. After all work if after tax you'd be better off claiming welfare!

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Maybe there's something in what you're saying. But I'd rather a weak Labour than strong Tories. Though I would like Ken Livingstone to be leader. Not Blair however.
    There clearly is something in what I'm saying. Look how the Tories won '92 after kicking out poor Maggie in 1990.
    That's putting ideology above reality

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Or... We can have *both*, so that people who are unemployed can live comfortably until they get a job.
    If people are too comfortable not working- why should they work?
    Why get up at say 3,4,5 in the morning and work for minimum wage, if you're as just as poor/even better of on benefits?


    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    They don't need incentives, there aren't any jobs! There are so many people applying for so few jobs the mind boggles.
    Incentives for employers to employ, ie. temporary NI employer holidays.
    Less welfare, more money used to fund tax cuts, schemes to increase employment

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    If they have to choose between food and heating, then they should be getting government support. And if you're that poor, council tax will be low (I advocate more progressive council taxes however).
    Council tax isn't means tested. People can apply for Council tax benefit but just like student finance if you earn just above the threshold there's little/no help available

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    If we need money, we can borrow it. Then we can repay it once the economy is going again,
    If you borrow above your means you will end up in bankruptcy of some sort (eventually).
    The deficit is high and needs to go down.

    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    but bear in mind as Krugman says, "debt is basically money we've borrowed from ourselves".
    The people of Greece certainly think Krugman is wrong!


    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    I try to be pragmatic, but please criticise me as much as you like. I need to refine my opinions!
    It's all friendly here!

    No ad hominem attacks lol!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApresAlkan)
    Seeing as you are contorting the traditional frame, let's use an analogy:

    The government owns all money. It just lends it to you, and lets you use it so that you can go about your daily business more conveniently. But it belongs to the government, and the government can use it.

    If you don't like that, consider that tax money helps us all.

    If you don't like that, consider that all of money and all of enterprise exists because of government funding and government intervention somewhere, and so forth and so forth and so forth.

    You are a fringe hard-rightwinger.
    I'm sorry, insisting that we analyse taxation objectively makes me a "fringe hard-rightwinger"? Fair enough.

    Perhaps its easier to see the flaws in the model you're advocating if we applied it to the private sector. Everybody needs food and all enterprise exists because entrepreneurs depend upon farmers and supermarkets to supply them with the food they require to survive. But this doesn't mean it's ok for Tesco to pinch a certain % of your income each and every month, we allow customers to exercise a degree of autonomy when it comes to dealing with them. Do you think the food distribution model would be improved if we allowed supermarkets to force money out of 'customers' on pain of imprisonment? Because it seems this is what you're saying.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    At the same time as slashing support to parents, public services, legal aid, and increasing the most regressive tax of all; VAT.

    Oh, and at the same time, they're completely ****ing the economy.
    It was labour that overspent in the good years between 2001 and 2007

    The tories are *trying to * clean up the mess made by labour and labour will probably reap the rewards of a thriving economy like they did in 1997
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joeman560)
    Could any Labour supporters here tell me why they support it. This isn't a troll thread, I am just curious.
    Because I am a leftie and so Labour are the only valid party out there for me. If you don't know of any arguments in favour of left politics I suggest you have a read of a few books or at least have a scroll through wiki. Or if you have and you still genuinely can't comprehend it, you're close minded. If you're gonna wanna discuss politics at all and really engage with arguments against the party you oppose you can't be ignorant and childish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Who has claimed you have a choice not to pay taxes?

    Or are you confusing the fact that your consent is derived from your democratically-elected representative with your belief that you should be able to opt out of the social contract altogether?
    I'm not confusing anything.

    You seem to be under the illusion that we can sanitise immoral actions with a democratic mandate. If this were true we could, in theory, levy a 100% income tax on everyone named Steve and then claim with a straight face that this isn't theft. Voting on something doesn't necessarily make the outcome ok.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    I meant the US when it actually produced things and didn't just borrow for the sake of current consumption in true Keynesian style. South Korea grew from free-market orientated ideas
    And yet, when the US dropped Keynesianism under Reagan, that's when it saw its manufacturing base start to disappear, the gap between rich and poor widen, complete stagnation of the middle class.

    Just out of interest, what do you think got us into the global recession in the first place?
    I imagine you're going tell us that it was excessive government regulation, and the like.

    Imho the abolition of the Chinese wall between deposit-taking commercial banks and investment banks and the "casino" was a grave mistake (Glass-Steagall). A perfect example would be to look to the banking systems of Canada and Australia, both of which retained the division between deposit-taking commercial banking and investment and speculative banking.

    Equally, keeping interest rates too low for too long was foolish.
 
 
 
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.