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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Our values are imposed by the colective. At the prospect of social rejection and ridicule.
    I agree with what's said above.

    You are able to think for yourself and be who you want to be, if you are different it is not forced upon you to change.

    Of course, it is human nature to see things that are different as weird, but if you had any stones you'd be your own person instead of complaining that society imposes values.

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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    There have been people with your views for many years, communism is not a new idea.
    It's like saying footballers shouldnt get paid so much, yes they should, because people pay to watch them, their skills are highly valued and therefore they are high in demand.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why does everyone seem to be of the opinion that I'm a communist
    but they don't contribute in the perfect world farmers and cleaners would be payed more then 'sports stars' as they do more.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why does everyone seem to be of the opinion that I'm a communist
    but they don't contribute in the perfect world farmers and cleaners would be payed more then 'sports stars' as they do more.

    No, that's your childish idea of a so called "perfect world"

    Economics state that things which are in high demand yet low supply are valuable.

    Farming and cleaning are unskilled jobs, anybody can do them, they are in demand but also have very high supply.

    Footballers have a rare talent, but are in high demand. People are paying money to buy tickets and subscriptions to watch them, and there is no reason they shouldn't get paid a lot, because people are ensuing to see them, if you want to stop that, you will have to make football illegal.

    It's not just footballers, anybody, engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants or anybody else with a sought after skill/talent such as CEO's

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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by reallydontknow)
    No, that's your childish idea of a so called "perfect world"

    Economics state that things which are in high demand yet low supply are valuable.

    Farming and cleaning are unskilled jobs, anybody can do them, they are in demand but also have very high supply.

    Footballers have a rare talent, but are in high demand. People are paying money to buy tickets and subscriptions to watch them, and there is no reason they shouldn't get paid a lot, because people are ensuing to see them, if you want to stop that, you will have to make football illegal.

    It's not just footballers, anybody, engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants or anybody else with a sought after skill/talent such as CEO's

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I'll give you an example of a zero growth economy.

    A company employs 10 people. Through an efficiecy saving and the introduction of better management techniques, you can do the same job with 5 people.

    If you keep ten people on yiuve just expanded the economy.

    If you let 5 people go to maintain a zero growth economy, there's now 5 people unemployed who will never find work elsewhere because other company's aren't growing to take them on.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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 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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They now include legalising being a member of ISIS
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    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.