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

Socialists are a dying breed in the UK Watch

    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I'm basing it on the small, but increasing number of people expressing the view that it would be beneficial to return to the nationalisation of the banks and energy companies such as British gas. There has been intense public anger at individuals such as 'Fred the Shred' which has made the idea more palatable to the average Briton.
    How's northern rock doing since it was nationalised?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    How's northern rock doing since it was nationalised?
    It was necessary to nationalise Northern Rock in the interests of fiscal stability. It was not part of a socialist idealogy.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    It was necessary to nationalise Northern Rock in the interests of fiscal stability. It was not part of a socialist idealogy.
    Has northern rock become stable since it was nationalised?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Has northern rock become stable since it was nationalised?
    Yes.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Yes.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8182751.stm

    Interesting take on 'hefty losses' ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    look at US, they have Obama!




    just joking! obviously i dont agree with this poster!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8182751.stm

    Interesting take on 'hefty losses' ...
    The hefty losses were not as a result of nationalisation; they were already inexorable.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    The hefty losses were not as a result of nationalisation; they were already inexorable.
    So how are we meant to guage whether nationalisation has increased stability, when losses are apparently guaranteed either way? A lot of taxpayers money has been spent on northern rock now - to justify that there must be very conclusive evidence that its been a success.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    So how are we meant to guage whether nationalisation has increased stability, when losses are apparently guaranteed either way? A lot of taxpayers money has been spent on northern rock now - to justify that there must be very conclusive evidence that its been a success.
    Northern Rock had to be nationalised - the economic consequences of not doing so were too dire, and its customers would have lost tvast amounts in savings. You cannot use Northern Rock as an example of why not to nationalise the banks because the decision to nationalise it was made in extraordinary circumstances and not for political reasons.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Northern Rock had to be nationalised - the economic consequences of not doing so were too dire, and its customers would have lost tvast amounts in savings. You cannot use Northern Rock as an example of why not to nationalise the banks because the decision to nationalise it was made in extraordinary circumstances and not for political reasons.
    So rather than its customers losing savings; its customers plus all other taxpayers had to lose money instead. Doesn't sound too logical to me, I gave up on socialism many years ago ...

    But alright let's talk about a more ideological matter rather than northern rock, I should have known that socialists don't like talking about their policies in practise; don't worry, libertarians don't either. :p:

    Why do you think the government is fundamentally more able to run an industry or a servise than the private market? What industries and servises would you actually leave upto the free-market?

    On social issues do you feel the government must protect its citizens or do you believe in individual liberty, e.g. would you legalise drugs or prohibit them?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by TheMeister)
    The only good thing to come out of socialism is the NHS.
    It's odd that so many Conservatives and righties say this since the NHS is, arguably, one of the purest examples of Socialism in action in the UK. It could be alot more Socialist, obviously, but in terms of our nation it's probably the most Socialist thing about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    So rather than its customers losing savings; its customers plus all other taxpayers had to lose money instead. Doesn't sound too logical to me, I gave up on socialism many years ago ...

    But alright let's talk about a more ideological matter rather than northern rock, I should have known that socialists don't like talking about their policies in practise; don't worry, libertarians don't either. :p:

    Why do you think the government is fundamentally more able to run an industry or a servise than the private market? What industries and servises would you actually leave upto the free-market?

    On social issues do you feel the government must protect its citizens or do you believe in individual liberty, e.g. would you legalise drugs or prohibit them?
    I would legalise drugs because there is evidence to indicate that this is the most effective way of lowering drug-abuse rates.
    It's not that the government would be better able to run industries such as banking and energy, but more that it is the moral right of the people to be able to control and regulate such services. A typical problem with capitalism is income inequality. I believe socialism would help reduce income disparity and would help redistribute the wealth ultimately making society fairer and more equal.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    But why should we be equal when we are clearly not all equally hard working? I know first hand how damn lazy some segments of the population are, having lived in a council estate for 14 years.

    And why the hell is it the 'moral right' of the people to control such industries? I'd much rather people who know what they are doing run them with competition of other such people to best ensure the consumer gets the best price.

    In short, you're a socialist because you are ideology over realism. When you go out to the real world and have to earn a living you will be pissed off if the lazy bum that doesn't have a job or only a minimal skilled job is earning a very similar wage to yourself despite the fact that you have a degree or other higher education qualification, which you had to work damned hard for.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I would legalise drugs because there is evidence to indicate that this is the most effective way of lowering drug-abuse rates.
    It's not that the government would be better able to run industries such as banking and energy, but more that it is the moral right of the people to be able to control and regulate such services. A typical problem with capitalism is income inequality. I believe socialism would help reduce income disparity and would help redistribute the wealth ultimately making society fairer and more equal.
    Well on the drug issue we can agree at least, though for me there is the added reason that it's the individuals choice and that the government doesn't have the right to prevent people from harming only themselves.

    You want the people to be able to control servises - I don't believe socialism is the way to achieve this. What you're advocating is the central control of public monopolies; and the people are forced into using this servise whether they want to or not, as it's a monopoly, and that restricts their control over the servise surely. With free-market capitalism anyone can set up a business and offer a servise in their own specific way, and the public can control which business they wish to give their money to - it's a system of effective proportional representation.

    The obvious response to this is that it only works if people are truly free to choose, i.e. there are no private monopolies and that everyone has the opportunity to be able to afford various alternatives. Well I could explain for either of those why I think capitalism works better than socialism, which I think actually exasperates these problems.

    On the point on equality, I have yet another question for you: would you make the poor poorer, if the rich were vastly poorer? For me personally, an increased affluence for all income brackets is a better goal than equality in income.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Well on the drug issue we can agree at least, though for me there is the added reason that it's the individuals choice and that the government doesn't have the right to prevent people from harming only themselves.

    You want the people to be able to control servises - I don't believe socialism is the way to achieve this. What you're advocating is the central control of public monopolies; and the people are forced into using this servise whether they want to or not, as it's a monopoly, and that restricts their control over the servise surely. With free-market capitalism anyone can set up a business and offer a servise in their own specific way, and the public can control which business they wish to give their money to - it's a system of effective proportional representation.

    The obvious response to this is that it only works if people are truly free to choose, i.e. there are no private monopolies and that everyone has the opportunity to be able to afford various alternatives. Well I could explain for either of those why I think capitalism works better than socialism, which I think actually exasperates these problems.

    On the point on equality, I have yet another question for you: would you make the poor poorer, if the rich were vastly poorer? For me personally, an increased affluence for all income brackets is a better goal than equality in income.

    I don't think absolute income equality is achievable or advisable. I think a cap on wages however would be greatly beneficial, such as no salary can exceed ten times the salary of the lowest paid person.
    The by-product of a capitalist society is rampant consumerism and materialism. Although it often results in a more affluent society, it is often met with rising levels of depression and unhappiness.
    I find it abhorrent that in this country there are children living in relative poverty where others are raised in a privileged cacoon and benefit from the typical advantages of a middle class lifestyle. Socialism helps achieve equality of opportunity and aid the redistribution of wealth which is needed, perhaps not for economic growth, but for social adancement.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well, it looks like the US is becoming socialist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    Well, it looks like the US is becoming socialist.
    Erm, how do you figure?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    I don't think absolute income equality is achievable or advisable. I think a cap on wages however would be greatly beneficial, such as no salary can exceed ten times the salary of the lowest paid person.
    The by-product of a capitalist society is rampant consumerism and materialism. Although it often results in a more affluent society, it is often met with rising levels of depression and unhappiness.
    I find it abhorrent that in this country there are children living in relative poverty where others are raised in a privileged cacoon and benefit from the typical advantages of a middle class lifestyle. Socialism helps achieve equality of opportunity and aid the redistribution of wealth which is needed, perhaps not for economic growth, but for social adancement.
    I know people getting paid 2.93 per hour (apprenticeships), so does that mean that in your world no one can get paid more than 30.00 per hour, so no one can make more than 80K per year?

    What a horribly totalitarian world you'd like to live in, economically speaking. I was brought up in a relatively middle class home because my dad worked damned hard so I could have such comforts as nice clothes, a computer and could go on holiday every year. If someone else's parents don't then that's tough.

    Besides, redistribution of wealth is a terrible idea. Why should people who have rightfully earned money have it stolen from them and given to people who are almost certainly lazier or not as qualified?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    I know people getting paid 2.93 per hour (apprenticeships), so does that mean that in your world no one can get paid more than 30.00 per hour, so no one can make more than 80K per year?

    What a horribly totalitarian world you'd like to live in, economically speaking. I was brought up in a relatively middle class home because my dad worked damned hard so I could have such comforts as nice clothes, a computer and could go on holiday every year. If someone else's parents don't then that's tough.

    Besides, redistribution of wealth is a terrible idea. Why should people who have rightfully earned money have it stolen from them and given to people who are almost certainly lazier or not as qualified?
    Do you think many poor people are poor because they're 'lazier' or because of lack of opportunity? Someone born into a privileged lifestyle is more likely to be successful themselven and often independent of ability.
    Do you think it's fair that a society can exist where there is such a considerable gap between rich and poor, where childrens lives are pre-determined by which class they're born into?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Do you think many poor people are poor because they're 'lazier' or because of lack of opportunity? Someone born into a privileged lifestyle is more likely to be successful themselven and often independent of ability.
    Do you think it's fair that a society can exist where there is such a considerable gap between rich and poor, where childrens lives are pre-determined by which class they're born into?
    Last time I checked there was such a thing as free will and children could get good grades and go to a good university and get a good job at the end of it. The only kid to go to Oxbridge from my secondary school was a really smart and hard working (obviously) kid from a really poor background - I think he was one of the only people on the full thirty pounds a week EMA.

    There is plenty of opportunity if you're willing to work hard. But with socialism, why work hard when you will get given money via redistribution of wealth from people who rightfully earned it? Success isn't inevitable and anyone who goes to any university to study any decent course will find that their parents' salaries do boost their grades one bit. The smartest guy in my halls was also the poorest. He had the most motivation and was, when it came down to it, the only guy willing to be in his room working on Friday night when we, the middle class kids, were out partying. He'll do well in life and will go far in his career.

    I see the appeal of socialism and wealth redistribution for many people because they will get much more out of it than they put into it but these people have a very different work ethic than me.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.