Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The EU question has shown how the left are the greatest hypocrites watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The left always argued that the government was shady and corrupt, and to be honest I always believed that too. They have friends in high places, they are very cosy with the banks and corporations, and they work on the basis of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours". The left have always pushed this argument into the public eye.

    However, the EU question has turned the left into the greatest hypocrites.

    They quote big banks (like the European bank, world bank ect.), institutions like the IMF and OECD in particular, all to promote their case for staying in. Do they not realise these are run by the world elite, these organisations have been dealing with our government for decades, they have very close relationships and owe favours to one another in terms of politics and debt for example. Why are the left not taking what they say with a pinch of salt?

    (I would just like to clarify, the right wingers who say they want to stay in the EU are corrupt anyway so don't think this is an attack solely on the left, I just see no point debating the right who want to stay in the EU since we can all agree on their motives)

    Did the left ever consider the government asked them for these favours, or they acted due to the close relationship. Has anyone actually judged any investigation they conducted, if they have conducted. Some are just giving their opinions but because "they are the world elite and big banks" we have to believe their word.

    Why are the left also backing big corrupt businesses like Google? Why are the companies in favour of leaving actually the small and medium ones who can't avoid tax on a global scale, who due to their size follow standards? Why are the left believing corrupt, tax avoiding, human right abuse type businesses but not those WHO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE RULES?

    Why aren't the left questioning the motives of these businesses? They have disregard for human rights (they pay horrific rates to their slave labour in poor countries), they pay barely no tax, they target all legal loop holes, they are responsible for destroying the environment, why are the left siding with these scum?

    The left quote other governments, the very same governments with their own motives and shady deals.

    WHY ARE THE LEFT NOT CHALLENGING THE ELITE NOW WHEN THEYVE BEEN DOING IT THEIR WHOLE LIVES?

    I am not asking for the left to just jump to the OUT campaign but I want them to challenge elite. Instead they have jumped into bed with them. The conservatives always use the economy to push their agenda yet the left now believe every word that comes from the treasury.

    And of course this does not apply to all the left but the vast overwhelming majority and mainstream leaders.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    You do realise that the IMF and the OECD are independent organisations, don't you? They're not even British. They have absolutely nothing to do with our government or our country. They also publish their studies, so maybe instead of claiming they're full of **** based on absolutely nothing you should actually analyse the data and tell us why they're full of ****.

    It's a ridiculous argument anyway. Our government is shady, but a stronger economy is better for the banks, businesses and government. What possible motive could this fictional illuminati have for trying to keep us in the EU?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    You do realise that the IMF and the OECD are independent organisations, don't you? They're not even British. They have absolutely nothing to do with our government or our country. They also publish their studies, so maybe instead of claiming they're full of **** based on absolutely nothing you should actually analyse the data and tell us why they're full of ****.

    It's a ridiculous argument anyway. Our government is shady, but a stronger economy is better for the banks, businesses and government. What possible motive could this fictional illuminati have for trying to keep us in the EU?
    If you don't question anything you never get any real answers. You have literally no idea what your talking about. Did the Government or the media tell you this? News flash: the Government and the media lie, consistently.

    ________________________________ ____________________________

    Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF
    What is the IMF?

    The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in 1944 at a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and are now based in Washington, DC. The IMF was originally designed to promote international economic cooperation and provide its member countries with short term loans so they could trade with other countries (achieve balance of payments). Since the debt crisis of the 1980's, the IMF has assumed the role of bailing out countries during financial crises (caused in large part by currency speculation in the global casino economy) with emergency loan packages tied to certain conditions, often referred to as structural adjustment policies (SAPs). The IMF now acts like a global loan shark, exerting enormous leverage over the economies of more than 60 countries. These countries have to follow the IMF's policies to get loans, international assistance, and even debt relief. Thus, the IMF decides how much debtor countries can spend on education, health care, and environmental protection. The IMF is one of the most powerful institutions on Earth -- yet few know how it works.

    The IMF has created an immoral system of modern day colonialism that SAPs the poor

    The IMF -- along with the WTO and the World Bank -- has put the global economy on a path of greater inequality and environmental destruction. The IMF's and World Bank's structural adjustment policies (SAPs) ensure debt repayment by requiring countries to cut spending on education and health; eliminate basic food and transportation subsidies; devalue national currencies to make exports cheaper; privatize national assets; and freeze wages. Such belt-tightening measures increase poverty, reduce countries' ability to develop strong domestic economies and allow multinational corporations to exploit workers and the environment A recent IMF loan package for Argentina, for example, is tied to cuts in doctors' and teachers' salaries and decreases in social security payments.. The IMF has made elites from the Global South more accountable to First World elites than their own people, thus undermining the democratic process.

    The IMF serves wealthy countries and Wall Street

    Unlike a democratic system in which each member country would have an equal vote, rich countries dominate decision-making in the IMF because voting power is determined by the amount of money that each country pays into the IMF's quota system. It's a system of one dollar, one vote. The U.S. is the largest shareholder with a quota of 18 percent. Germany, Japan, France, Great Britain, and the US combined control about 38 percent. The disproportionate amount of power held by wealthy countries means that the interests of bankers, investors and corporations from industrialized countries are put above the needs of the world's poor majority.

    The IMF is imposing a fundamentally flawed development model

    Unlike the path historically followed by the industrialized countries, the IMF forces countries from the Global South to prioritize export production over the development of diversified domestic economies. Nearly 80 percent of all malnourished children in the developing world live in countries where farmers have been forced to shift from food production for local consumption to the production of export crops destined for wealthy countries. The IMF also requires countries to eliminate assistance to domestic industries while providing benefits for multinational corporations -- such as forcibly lowering labor costs. Small businesses and farmers can't compete. Sweatshop workers in free trade zones set up by the IMF and World Bank earn starvation wages, live in deplorable conditions, and are unable to provide for their families. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated, not eliminated, as governments' debt to the IMF grows.

    The IMF is a secretive institution with no accountability

    The IMF is funded with taxpayer money, yet it operates behind a veil of secrecy. Members of affected communities do not participate in designing loan packages. The IMF works with a select group of central bankers and finance ministers to make polices without input from other government agencies such as health, education and environment departments. The institution has resisted calls for public scrutiny and independent evaluation.

    IMF policies promote corporate welfare

    To increase exports, countries are encouraged to give tax breaks and subsidies to export industries. Public assets such as forestland and government utilities (phone, water and electricity companies) are sold off to foreign investors at rock bottom prices. In Guyana, an Asian owned timber company called Barama received a logging concession that was 1.5 times the total amount of land all the indigenous communities were granted. Barama also received a five-year tax holiday. The IMF forced Haiti to open its market to imported, highly subsidized US rice at the same time it prohibited Haiti from subsidizing its own farmers. A US corporation called Early Rice now sells nearly 50 percent of the rice consumed in Haiti.

    The IMF hurts workers

    The IMF and World Bank frequently advise countries to attract foreign investors by weakening their labor laws -- eliminating collective bargaining laws and suppressing wages, for example. The IMF's mantra of "labor flexibility" permits corporations to fire at whim and move where wages are cheapest. According to the 1995 UN Trade and Development Report, employers are using this extra "flexibility" in labor laws to shed workers rather than create jobs. In Haiti, the government was told to eliminate a statute in their labor code that mandated increases in the minimum wage when inflation exceeded 10 percent. By the end of 1997, Haiti's minimum wage was only $2.40 a day. Workers in the U.S. are also hurt by IMF policies because they have to compete with cheap, exploited labor. The IMF's mismanagement of the Asian financial crisis plunged South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries into deep depression that created 200 million "newly poor." The IMF advised countries to "export their way out of the crisis." Consequently, more than US 12,000 steelworkers were laid off when Asian steel was dumped in the US.

    The IMF's policies hurt women the most

    SAPs make it much more difficult for women to meet their families' basic needs. When education costs rise due to IMF-imposed fees for the use of public services (so-called "user fees") girls are the first to be withdrawn from schools. User fees at public clinics and hospitals make healthcare unaffordable to those who need it most. The shift to export agriculture also makes it harder for women to feed their families. Women have become more exploited as government workplace regulations are rolled back and sweatshops abuses increase.

    IMF Policies hurt the environment

    IMF loans and bailout packages are paving the way for natural resource exploitation on a staggering scale. The IMF does not consider the environmental impacts of lending policies, and environmental ministries and groups are not included in policy making. The focus on export growth to earn hard currency to pay back loans has led to an unsustainable liquidation of natural resources. For example, the Ivory Coast's increased reliance on cocoa exports has led to a loss of two-thirds of the country's forests.

    The IMF bails out rich bankers, creating a moral hazard and greater instability in the global economy

    The IMF routinely pushes countries to deregulate financial systems. The removal of regulations that might limit speculation has greatly increased capital investment in developing country financial markets. More than $1.5 trillion crosses borders every day. Most of this capital is invested short-term, putting countries at the whim of financial speculators. The Mexican 1995 peso crisis was partly a result of these IMF policies. When the bubble popped, the IMF and US government stepped in to prop up interest and exchange rates, using taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street bankers. Such bailouts encourage investors to continue making risky, speculative bets, thereby increasing the instability of national economies. During the bailout of Asian countries, the IMF required governments to assume the bad debts of private banks, thus making the public pay the costs and draining yet more resources away from social programs.

    IMF bailouts deepen, rather then solve, economic crisis

    During financial crises -- such as with Mexico in 1995 and South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Brazil, and Russia in 1997 -- the IMF stepped in as the lender of last resort. Yet the IMF bailouts in the Asian financial crisis did not stop the financial panic -- rather, the crisis deepened and spread to more countries. The policies imposed as conditions of these loans were bad medicine, causing layoffs in the short run and undermining development in the long run. In South Korea, the IMF sparked a recession by raising interest rates, which led to more bankruptcies and unemployment. Under the IMF imposed economic reforms after the peso bailout in 1995, the number of Mexicans living in extreme poverty increased more than 50 percent and the national average minimum wage fell 20 percent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The left only values political systems that give them what they want, some see the EUSSR as a stepping stone to world socialism.

    The elite supports socialism because they know socialists need the cash to fund their fiscally irresponsible ideas and can be lead around like a donkey to a carrot, they will never get what they desire in the end though, so us righties get the last laugh.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's a very bizzarare fantasy land the brexiters live in where only big evil corporates want to stay in (ie Innocent smoothie) and career politicians (Caroline Lucas MP) whereas on the other side there are only people who want the best for us like Richard 'Dirty' Desmond, Aaron Banks and true anti establishment politicians like... uh , Michael Gove.





    But then again they've got no real argument so edgy conments about Goldman Sachs (who will continue to operate in the UK regardless) is one way of muddying the waters. Kenyan ancestry anyone?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Omen96)
    X
    And you think these issues are just going to disappear by leaving? The EU is far from perfect - I don't think you'll find many people on the left gushing with praise for the EU in its current state - but if anything, the UK is more right wing than bulk Europe. These problems are just going to be exacerbated by leaving the EU. And besides, the EU is a platform for international influence. We actually have a platform to challenge the flaws of the EU whilst we're in the EU, hence actually maintaining the ability to have a significant global influence. The UK, in comparison to Europe as a union, the USA and China, really isn't a particularly important country so leaving the EU would hugely damage our international influence and hence the UK left's ability to actually cause change that matters.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    It's a very bizzarare fantasy land the brexiters live in where only big evil corporates want to stay in (ie Innocent smoothie) and career politicians (Caroline Lucas MP) whereas on the other side there are only people who want the best for us like Richard 'Dirty' Desmond, Aaron Banks and true anti establishment politicians like... uh , Michael Gove.





    But then again they've got no real argument so edgy conments about Goldman Sachs (who will continue to operate in the UK regardless) is one way of muddying the waters. Kenyan ancestry anyone?
    There are idiots on our side to, I never disputed that. My post is purely on the left who General election after General election tell us to not listen to these big banks and institutions, and to not give in to the pressure of big corrupt business. Now the left are saying we should listen to these very entities. The second their motives align they **** on all the principles they had to further their agenda, that's hypocritical
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    And you think these issues are just going to disappear by leaving? The EU is far from perfect - I don't think you'll find many people on the left gushing with praise for the EU in its current state - but if anything, the UK is more right wing than bulk Europe. These problems are just going to be exacerbated by leaving the EU. And besides, the EU is a platform for international influence. We actually have a platform to challenge the flaws of the EU whilst we're in the EU, hence actually maintaining the ability to have a significant global influence. The UK, in comparison to Europe as a union, the USA and China, really isn't a particularly important country so leaving the EU would hugely damage our international influence and hence the UK left's ability to actually cause change that matters.
    This was never a thread on the EU, there's plenty more threads on that. I'm addressing the left IN voters. I'd rather you addressed that. For the record I'm 100% sure we are voting IN and the margin will be large, I'm predicting 80 IN and 20 OUT. So I know Brexit won't win, you know this as well so what's the point of your statement?
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    The EU isn't a left/right issue. Half the Tory party supports In, and plenty of Labour/Greens/etc. support Out. The campaign on both sides is thus going to be a mixture of right- and left-wing stuff, but that isn't evidence of hypocrisy.

    Also, dismissing an argument just because you don't like the person who came up with it is obviously just an ad hominem fallacy. So long as the argument is sound it shouldn't matter whether it came from Goldman or Greenpeace. So in that regard, a left-wing politician is being less hypocritical by agreeing with pro-EU arguments from big businesses.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    A plethora of ad hominems rather than addressing the points those international organisations have raised. Sorry. nil point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    You do realise that the IMF and the OECD are independent organisations, don't you? They're not even British. They have absolutely nothing to do with our government or our country. They also publish their studies, so maybe instead of claiming they're full of **** based on absolutely nothing you should actually analyse the data and tell us why they're full of ****.

    It's a ridiculous argument anyway. Our government is shady, but a stronger economy is better for the banks, businesses and government. What possible motive could this fictional illuminati have for trying to keep us in the EU?
    Before I address the rest of your post, point out where I said they weren't independent bodies? My god man, read!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 雷尼克)
    I love how people like you generalise the EU opposition as 'left', there are plenty of people from both left, right and centre who want to remain in the EU and who want to leave the EU.

    Views on the EU aren't strictly tied to whether or not you're left wing.
    I know and I always make that point but the vast overwhelming majority on the left want to stay, the real core opposition is on the right, that is Fact
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    A plethora of ad hominems rather than addressing the points those international organisations have raised. Sorry. nil point.
    Why were the left complaining about these very organisations in the General elections when these organisations promoted austerity? You can't have it both ways so pick a side
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Omen96)
    This was never a thread on the EU, there's plenty more threads on that. I'm addressing the left IN voters. I'd rather you addressed that. For the record I'm 100% sure we are voting IN and the margin will be large, I'm predicting 80 IN and 20 OUT. So I know Brexit won't win, you know this as well so what's the point of your statement?
    Sorry, how exactly is this "not a thread on the EU" when your entire OP has been criticising the left for their support of the "In" campaign?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    The EU isn't a left/right issue. Half the Tory party supports In, and plenty of Labour/Greens/etc. support Out. The campaign on both sides is thus going to be a mixture of right- and left-wing stuff, but that isn't evidence of hypocrisy.

    Also, dismissing an argument just because you don't like the person who came up with it is obviously just an ad hominem fallacy. So long as the argument is sound it shouldn't matter whether it came from Goldman or Greenpeace. So in that regard, a left-wing politician is being less hypocritical by agreeing with pro-EU arguments from big businesses.
    They should stop saying these bodies are "corrupt big business" or "elitists" in the general elections, just because they side with Tory policy. You can't have it both ways
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    Why were the left complaining about these very organisations in the General elections when these organisations promoted austerity? You can't have it both ways so pick a side
    Maybe some were, but not most, and certainly not the politicians themselves standing for election. But generally anyone who uses that line of argument is really not helping their cause, and two wrongs don't make a right.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by Omen96)
    They should stop saying these bodies are "corrupt big business" or "elitists" in the general elections, just because they side with Tory policy. You can't have it both ways
    You've used the word "they" several times now. Who exactly are you quoting?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Sorry, how exactly is this "not a thread on the EU" when your entire OP has been criticising the left for their support of the "In" campaign?
    Edit EU question*

    The debate is not about "should we stay or should we leave?"

    It's about left wing voters for the IN camp
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    The left always argued that the government was shady and corrupt, and to be honest I always believed that too. They have friends in high places, they are very cosy with the banks and corporations, and they work on the basis of "you scratch my back, I scratch yours". The left have always pushed this argument into the public eye.

    However, the EU question has turned the left into the greatest hypocrites.

    They quote big banks (like the European bank, world bank ect.), institutions like the IMF and OECD in particular, all to promote their case for staying in. Do they not realise these are run by the world elite, these organisations have been dealing with our government for decades, they have very close relationships and owe favours to one another in terms of politics and debt for example. Why are the left not taking what they say with a pinch of salt?

    (I would just like to clarify, the right wingers who say they want to stay in the EU are corrupt anyway so don't think this is an attack solely on the left, I just see no point debating the right who want to stay in the EU since we can all agree on their motives)

    Did the left ever consider the government asked them for these favours, or they acted due to the close relationship. Has anyone actually judged any investigation they conducted, if they have conducted. Some are just giving their opinions but because "they are the world elite and big banks" we have to believe their word.

    Why are the left also backing big corrupt businesses like Google? Why are the companies in favour of leaving actually the small and medium ones who can't avoid tax on a global scale, who due to their size follow standards? Why are the left believing corrupt, tax avoiding, human right abuse type businesses but not those WHO ACTUALLY FOLLOW THE RULES?

    Why aren't the left questioning the motives of these businesses? They have disregard for human rights (they pay horrific rates to their slave labour in poor countries), they pay barely no tax, they target all legal loop holes, they are responsible for destroying the environment, why are the left siding with these scum?

    The left quote other governments, the very same governments with their own motives and shady deals.

    WHY ARE THE LEFT NOT CHALLENGING THE ELITE NOW WHEN THEYVE BEEN DOING IT THEIR WHOLE LIVES?

    I am not asking for the left to just jump to the OUT campaign but I want them to challenge elite. Instead they have jumped into bed with them. The conservatives always use the economy to push their agenda yet the left now believe every word that comes from the treasury.

    And of course this does not apply to all the left but the vast overwhelming majority and mainstream leaders.
    You said it well!
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Omen96)
    Edit EU question*

    The debate is not about "should we stay or should we leave?"

    It's about left wing voters for the IN camp
    Yes, and I've explained why I don't think it's hypocritical for left wing voters to be part of the "In" camp. Wanting to stay is the EU does not mean you agree with the current state of the EU.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.