Liberal Democrat's Policies Watch

This discussion is closed.
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#41
(Original post by llama boy)
it is certainly true that the current globalised system doesn't allow for govts to apply any sort of serious labour / environmental laws without a huge flight of business to other countries. Worry not, I have plans for this too!


Lazy statement, that. I could debate this all night, but i'm not going to. I will say one thing, though. The US, in its current state of control-by-business... exactly how far does that have to go before it doesn't count as democracy?

TBH, I'm not going to get into defending any current regime. i'm not defending the US, i'm not defending China, I'm certainly not defending North Korea etc.

What I am saying is that there has to be a better way than all of them.
it is called free market capitalism. The US state isnt controlled by business, just influenced , you could say the same about the media
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 15 years ago
#42
(Original post by kildare)
Surely minimum GLOBAL labour/enviromental laws would be one way to solve this problem, what's your "plan"?
I'm not sure I said I had one!

Seriously, I dunno all the answers, and global rules for that sort of thing would be a good start (although we should be careful that they aren't just used as a protectionist tool by the rich world to protect jobs).

Doesn't this come back to the start of the debate though? All the major parties, including the lib dems, totally support the WTO et al, which is fighting for the exact opposite of those rules.
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report 15 years ago
#43
How old are you JSM (if you don't mind me asking)?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#44
(Original post by llama boy)
Perhaps there is more choice than just the two you mention.

Market based socialism (ie workers owning the companies they work for) isn't something i support, but provides an example that seems to give the best from both worlds.
the examples of co ops have mainly failed ill dig out some examples later.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 15 years ago
#45
(Original post by JSM)
it is called free market capitalism. The US state isnt controlled by business, just influenced , you could say the same about the media
you could and you'd be right.

not a great defence of free markets either, that, is it?
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 15 years ago
#46
(Original post by JSM)
because an investment banker already pays more money into the state because it is a percentage so effectively they are paying twice over. Well if everyone followed the money, supply and demand would mean a teacher shortage causes more people to follow teaching unless you are in a welfare state. Welfare capitalism cannot work
They are only paying the extra tax on the extra money they are making. The investment banker's extra tax money has a much larger social benefit when redistributed by the State than it would have if it was sat in a bank somewhere.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#47
(Original post by kildare)
What about some people's inherent advantages? What about people who do vital jobs, which have an enourmous social benefit but which aren't paid as well? What about the law of diminishing returns (i.e how much difference an extra $10,000 means to someone)?
and? so what, i am born with certain genes therefore i will always be an individual, everyone is an individual, not everyone can do the same, in a game of sports someone has to win, or draw or lose, its like life. its the same in relationship competition. "survival of the fittest" therefore i will have advantages and disadvantages. "lif issnt fair" so what if an extra 10,000 means a huge difference, it would to me, i could buy a car. it would to most people, bill gates could give another 10,000 to charity
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 15 years ago
#48
(Original post by JSM)
Welfare capitalism cannot work
again, we're back to that funny word - "work". whatever does it mean?
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#49
Report 15 years ago
#49
(Original post by llama boy)
All the major parties, including the lib dems, totally support the WTO et al, which is fighting for the exact opposite of those rules.
Errr, when you say "The WTO" what exactly are you referring to, the member states or the secretariat?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#50
(Original post by aliel)
mhmhmhm LOL No. It was not fair. The poll tax affair caused Thatcher so much trouble, the whole country was disgusted. Even few die-hard conservatives would even bother to try and defend the tax.
it is undefendable because people think it isnt fair if people are treated differetnly on genes/upbringing but is fair if they are treated differently on wealth That is a complete hypocrisy. Equal rights, equal responsibilites. It is probably one of hte most sensible taxes but people dont like the idea of it because subjectively everyone is poorer off, except bill gates and therefore wose off. why should they pay the same is what htye would argue
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#51
Report 15 years ago
#51
(Original post by JSM)
and? so what, i am born with certain genes therefore i will always be an individual, everyone is an individual, not everyone can do the same, in a game of sports someone has to win, or draw or lose, its like life. its the same in relationship competition. "survival of the fittest" therefore i will have advantages and disadvantages. "lif issnt fair" so what if an extra 10,000 means a huge difference, it would to me, i could buy a car. it would to most people, bill gates could give another 10,000 to charity
What about people who are not born with these "certain genes" as you call them, do we just cast them aside and leave them to die?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#52
(Original post by aliel)
How old are you JSM (if you don't mind me asking)?
16, u?
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#53
Report 15 years ago
#53
JSM- looking at this from a purely economic point of view, would you not accept that it is much more benifical for an economy to have money circulating around the system and this is far more likely to happen if wealth is redistrubted out of off shore (or on shore) bank accounts and into the hands of people who will be forced to spend it?
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#54
(Original post by kildare)
They are only paying the extra tax on the extra money they are making. The investment banker's extra tax money has a much larger social benefit when redistributed by the State than it would have if it was sat in a bank somewhere.
so you are taking it away from them, what they have worked from 7-6 to earn and taken huge emotional risks like losing billions of dollars of someone else's money and therefore hte pressure on your job. And hte long hours of work you had to puti nto get there
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#55
Report 15 years ago
#55
(Original post by kildare)
Errr, when you say "The WTO" what exactly are you referring to, the member states or the secretariat?
When I say "The WTO et al" I guess I'm referring to the power behind the organisations, very largely a juggernaut of big business and the US govt.

Any illusion of consensus decision making etc is just that.
0
aliel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 15 years ago
#56
(Original post by JSM)
it is undefendable because people think it isnt fair if people are treated differetnly on genes/upbringing but is fair if they are treated differently on wealth That is a complete hypocrisy. Equal rights, equal responsibilites. It is probably one of hte most sensible taxes but people dont like the idea of it because subjectively everyone is poorer off, except bill gates and therefore wose off. why should they pay the same is what htye would argue

Why should people be MADE to have "equal responsibilities" if they have hardly "equal opportunities". I am sorry but JSM, wait until you are faced with the real world, and you may change your opinion.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#57
(Original post by kildare)
JSM- looking at this from a purely economic point of view, would you not accept that it is much more benifical for an economy to have money circulating around the system and this is far more likely to happen if wealth is redistrubted out of off shore (or on shore) bank accounts and into the hands of people who will be forced to spend it?
it is beneficial to have money circulating unless you have too much circulation. But they would spend it, the investment bankers i know spend huge amounts on champagne, employing servants, betting, they spend it because they are in genreal young. Why should their money be GIVEN away, otehr people dont have to put one ounce of extra effort in to get it.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#58
(Original post by kildare)
What about people who are not born with these "certain genes" as you call them, do we just cast them aside and leave them to die?
maybe, maybe not, family ties, if i die, i die, if someone else dies, they die. Everyone will sooner or later die, so it is irrelavent.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#59
Report 15 years ago
#59
(Original post by JSM)
so you are taking it away from them, what they have worked from 7-6 to earn and taken huge emotional risks like losing billions of dollars of someone else's money and therefore hte pressure on your job. And hte long hours of work you had to puti nto get there
They are still rewarded for this, there net pay is much higher than most.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#60
(Original post by aliel)
Why should people be MADE to have "equal responsibilities" if they have hardly "equal opportunities". I am sorry but JSM, wait until you are faced with the real world, and you may change your opinion.
so how old are you and i think i have been faced with the real world, i wlaked through tower hamlets on christmas day at one in the morning. I think i have seen the real world. I have friends in mallorca who basically substinence farm because they are asset rich, cash poor

depends what you mean by equal opportunities, equally under law the same legal opportunities, but there are also social constraints, im not saying force them to have equakl responsibilite ie vote and dont complain about parites if you didnt vote
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you think the internet has made political discussion more aggressive?

Yes (17)
94.44%
No (1)
5.56%

Watched Threads

View All