Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2961
Report 8 years ago
#2961
I thought Anonymous had a good idea there, then I read the first entry in that blog.:sick:
0
simontinsley
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2962
Report 8 years ago
#2962
I think it said it all when he said this, and then went onto talk about Economics.

"I’m not an economist (by any means)"

Quite.
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2963
Report 8 years ago
#2963
Congratulations on your election SciFiBoy =]
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2964
Report 8 years ago
#2964
(Original post by paddy__power)
Congratulations on your election SciFiBoy =]
thank you

already started some discussions on moving the party forward, keep an eye out for more Socialist bills coming soon too, as soon as our new C2 is elected, they will come!
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2965
Report 8 years ago
#2965
(Original post by SciFiBoy)
thank you

already started some discussions on moving the party forward, keep an eye out for more Socialist bills coming soon too, as soon as our new C2 is elected, they will come!
I'm glad to hear it, I'm sure you bring various ideas to the party and lets hope we dill see some good bills coming through. There has been significant change of leadership recently so it will be interesting to see the directions parties take.
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2966
Report 8 years ago
#2966
What would you say your party's 5 main policy priorities are?
0
Anony mouse
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2967
Report 8 years ago
#2967
(Original post by SciFiBoy)
this site is normally quite good - http://liberalconspiracy.org/
I'm confused by one of their latest posts: does more equality mean lower growth? It appears to imply that a more equal society actually makes 90% of people poorer than in a more unequal society. This contradicts socialists' argument that a more equal society would make the poor richer. Libertarians have always argued that inequality doesn't matter so long as everyone is better off, which this blog post on a left wing blog confirms.

"After a few generations (below), the material benefits of a more equal society [Country 2] more or less vanish as everyone bar the very poorest become worse off than they would have been in more unequal blueland [Country 1]".

0
faber niger
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2968
Report 8 years ago
#2968
(Original post by simontinsley)
I think it said it all when he said this, and then went onto talk about Economics.

"I’m not an economist (by any means)"

Quite.
(I'm taking in terms of the general principle here, as I haven't read what the user you mention wrote.) Whilst expert knowledge may be a very important factor in making good decisions in some fields, such an appeal to authority can also quash debate unnecessarily. After all, knowledge is only useful up to a certain point -- since economic decisions are always value judgements. Even if we have encyclopaedic knowledge of all kinds of economic models and theories, to make a decision is a political choice about what is most important in society (e.g. national accumulation of profit, social ends, ecological ends, some combination thereof etc. etc.). For example, an important division between libertarian and socialist thought is that the former is prepared, for the so-called greater good, to allow high levels of inequality, whilst the latter is not: knowledge has no effect on such fundamental axiomata. Besides, economic predictions are always to be taken with a pinch of salt as we all know, so it's certainly not as though greater knowledge = greater perspicacity in such a social science.
0
cambo211
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2969
Report 8 years ago
#2969
In a lot of your preambles you say that people shouldn't have to spend their hard earned money on such and such.

What do the TSR socialists think people should spend their "hard earned" money on?
0
TheCrackInTime
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2970
Report 8 years ago
#2970
(Original post by cambo211)
In a lot of your preambles you say that people shouldn't have to spend their hard earned money on such and such.

What do the TSR socialists think people should spend their "hard earned" money on?
Funding the trade unions of course.
0
StatusRed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2971
Report 8 years ago
#2971
(Original post by cambo211)
In a lot of your preambles you say that people shouldn't have to spend their hard earned money on such and such.

What do the TSR socialists think people should spend their "hard earned" money on?
Luxuries for improving the quality of their own life.
0
adamrules247
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2972
Report 8 years ago
#2972
Check out number 71 on the list of top 100 Conservative blogs. That's me :awesome:

(Original post by Anony mouse)
Hello. :hi:

I'm looking for a list of the top socialist blogs. I found a list of top 25 Green blogs but I understand that some socialists are a little sceptical of the list compiled by the 'Total Politics' magazine site as the site itself was created by Conservative journalist Iain Dale . Over the past year or two I've only been listening to one side of the debate and I think it's time to listen to the other side.

Warm regards,

Anony, the mouse.

0
cambo211
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2973
Report 8 years ago
#2973
(Original post by xXedixXx)
Luxuries for improving the quality of their own life.
Thats what i would describe premium sports channels as.
0
ByronicHero
  • PS Reviewer
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2974
Report 8 years ago
#2974
(Original post by xXedixXx)
Luxuries for improving the quality of their own life.
Like what? And what logic dictates that these things improve someones quality of life more than, for example, the ability to travel across london. Why not make chocolate free, or holidays free. If it's so important for you to 'improve the quality...' and for people to spend their 'hard earned' on it then it strikes me that you're approaching it from the wrong end. Why not make luxuries free?

The only viable argument here would be [and ill help you out by stating it] that you can't know what people consider luxuries. If this is the case though then how can you know what you're freeing people up to do. Do you not also think that the things you will have to take money out of to fund these things can be broadly said to improve everyones quality of life rather than assuming something improves some - the police, NHS etc.

There is an economic argument for not making massive cuts, and it's well known, but where is the argument for increasing spending without increasing jobs or anything.

On a final note, and a question, do you not think you're more 'Social Democrat' as a party than 'Socialist' - you seem to favour reform and this is partially promoted by the way things are on TSR, either way please also provide some justification as I'm interested in your opinion paertaining to the nature of TSR Socialists post-leadership change.

I'm just not really sure of the direction of your party. It just all seems a bit strange. You consider the marginal use of increasing access to the tube for example but this doesn't seem like the highest priority allocation of that kind of funding which is surely better off being put into healthcare and education for the greatest utility. Now I'm not even nearly proficient enough to go into the economics of all this but I'm just highlighting that I can't quite work out your direction as a party.

I'm yet to have my morning coffee as well so the abovemay not even make sense :p:
0
adamrules247
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2975
Report 8 years ago
#2975
So the rubbish bill factory you own. Is it nationalised or a private company?
0
Wednesday Bass
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2976
Report 8 years ago
#2976
(Original post by adamrules247)
So the rubbish bill factory you own. Is it nationalised or a private company?
Nationalised of course. Because privatised companies are bad mmkay.
0
Adorno
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2977
Report 8 years ago
#2977
(Original post by Wednesday Bass)
Nationalised of course. Because privatised companies are bad mmkay.
Don't be so hasty here. The Socialists have a Milibandite as their leader so I would have thought that it's run through PFI rather than directly nationalised or privatised. That would be why it's so ****.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2978
Report 8 years ago
#2978
(Original post by Adorno)
Don't be so hasty here. The Socialists have a Milibandite as their leader so I would have thought that it's run through PFI rather than directly nationalised or privatised. That would be why it's so ****.
what utter dross.

as you will see in future bills and my policy stances on many issues, I am not even remotley Milibandite.
0
Adorno
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2979
Report 8 years ago
#2979
(Original post by SciFiBoy)
what utter dross.

as you will see in future bills and my policy stances on many issues, I am not even remotley Milibandite.
Not you, the other one. xxxxxxxxxxsomething something xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2980
Report 8 years ago
#2980
(Original post by Adorno)
Not you, the other one. xxxxxxxxxxsomething something xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will let him answer that, but I think xXediXxx is doing a very good job as both an MP and C2 for the party, there is no whip in our party either, people can have there own views...
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

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (52)
29.89%
No - I got the required grades (100)
57.47%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (22)
12.64%

Watched Threads

View All