Buy Liverpool T-Shirts, LFC Kit and Merch now


Click here for Liverpool FC personalised gift shop

Page 26 of 32 FirstFirst ... 161920212223242526272829303132 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 311

Thread: Brexit thread 2 Electric Boogaloo

  1. #251
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    15,547
    Quote Originally Posted by stevie harkness View Post
    We are emotional beings not robots (yet)

    A nation is essentially made up of millions of homes.

    Every home I have ever been a part of, grown up in, visited, lived in or shared, is essentially run according to a "left wing" model of family, sharing, looking after each other, every person contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need. Every family worthy of the name operates in this way.

    This then extends out into the street, villages, tribes (look how the surviving indigenous tribes of the world live)

    So perhaps the problem comes when humans try to live in groups of more than a few hundred people.

    Suddenly there are people we don't know, strangers, and we look at each other differently (or not at all) and treat each other differently, and loving each other and sharing is no longer 'practical' and there are profits to be had, and right wing ideologies are best for that.
    I'd agree with you to a point, socialism/communism works best on very small scales. The family or the small tribe/community. But on larger scales it simply doesnt work as well and to some degree, which is the realm in which I think right and left wing ideologies are most aptly applied. On a smaller scale like families left right ideals overlap or mix.

    I'd disagree that the family runs on left wing ideals. I dont know any family that redistributes its wealth by formal means to reduce inequality within the family. If we were siblings and dependent on our parents and you worked at weekends and I didn't i dont know a single family that would make you share your earnings with me. If I moaned I think the vastest majorities would say get your own job, where basic needs are met.
    Do you receive or give money each week from your wage to balance out the needs of others in your immediate family ? Is it mandated or done freely ?

  2. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTV View Post
    I'd disagree that the family runs on left wing ideals. I dont know any family that redistributes its wealth by formal means to reduce inequality within the family. If we were siblings and dependent on our parents and you worked at weekends and I didn't i dont know a single family that would make you share your earnings with me. If I moaned I think the vastest majorities would say get your own job, where basic needs are met.
    Do you receive or give money each week from your wage to balance out the needs of others in your immediate family ? Is it mandated or done freely ?
    I wasn't talking about money or redistribution of wealth. I was talking about everyone having a roof over their head and food to eat and clothes to wear, "contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need". Nobody needs money if their needs are met (unless they don't trust the future).... This is how families work, and family can extend beyond the walls of a home.

    Perhaps the terms "left wing/right wing" doesn't adequately describe it so we're not talking about the same thing, but that's my sense of what left wing / right wing are. Even if deep down we know that both wings belong to the same bird. And it's a cuckoo.

    When the Bushmen of the Kalahari return from a hunt they give some meat to the poor widow who contributed nothing except her prayers...why? Some mandate from the boss? tradition? honouring the ancestors? or just because it's the decent thing to do? (or because the meat is going to quickly go off in the hot sun?) whatever, their society works.

    The right thing to do is to do the right thing.

  3. #253
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    everywhere and nowhere
    Posts
    2,560
    Quote Originally Posted by stevie harkness View Post
    I wasn't talking about money or redistribution of wealth. I was talking about everyone having a roof over their head and food to eat and clothes to wear, "contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need". Nobody needs money if their needs are met (unless they don't trust the future).... This is how families work, and family can extend beyond the walls of a home.

    Perhaps the terms "left wing/right wing" doesn't adequately describe it so we're not talking about the same thing, but that's my sense of what left wing / right wing are. Even if deep down we know that both wings belong to the same bird. And it's a cuckoo.

    When the Bushmen of the Kalahari return from a hunt they give some meat to the poor widow who contributed nothing except her prayers...why? Some mandate from the boss? tradition? honouring the ancestors? or just because it's the decent thing to do? (or because the meat is going to quickly go off in the hot sun?) whatever, their society works.

    The right thing to do is to do the right thing.
    Works well in relatively small communities because people know each other.
    Once the number of people escalates, you'll always get some greedy twot who spoils it for everyone else.
    And then, the politicians get involved, businessmen...
    There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief

  4. #254
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,163
    Most of what the UK achieved was built on socialism, well, a form of socialism, it worked for years, the UK's become increasingly broken and divided since the Tories changed from a system that worked incredibly successfully to Reeganomics, the only thing thats going to arrest the Uk's slide is returning to the model that worked and binning off Reeganomics. Every single one of the major issues in the UK has been caused by Reeganomics, if you follow a model like that, you're going to end up with a society like that and thats what's caused the UK to go to shit.

    Any model for society is workable but can be easily broken by excessive greed. Capitalism could work fine without the excessive greed, in the old system we had socialism and capitalism running side by side in relative harmony, there wasn't this US ideal of smashing profit margins every year, banking and investment was conducted far more responsibly and that benefited the majority, because they could save and have bank accounts that would give them reasonable returns on their savings, they could borrow money without excessive interest and it was pretty well balanced. People got paid a fair wage for fair work because there wasn't the excessive greed or number of interested parties (investors) in businesses that wanted people working for as little as possible again to try and maximise and increase their profits year on year. People doing normal jobs, that would be zero hour contract jobs in today's Tory society could buy a house or get a council house in their early twenties, have 2 or 3 kids and feed and clothe them. Obsolesence and the witholding of the newest technology only to release it in phases a year to 18 months after each next higher tech model wasn't anywhere like as rife.

    It's as you saym down to what really are a few very very greedy bastards who want more money than they can ever spend and are quite happy to see billions of other people suffer to achieve that
    "If Everton were playing at the bottom of my garden, i'd close the curtains”

  5. #255
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    25,456
    There will always be a few "greedy barstewards" who will want more and more even if that's at the expense of the less fortunate, namely because it's human nature to want more and because there will always be those who have faulty 'moral compasses. That is why true socialism will not work. You need a system which allows for personal freedom, individual goals etc but also makes sure that those most in need are taken care of and given ample opportunity themselves to be given the means and freedom to pursue their own individual goals.

    The trouble is that there is too big a disparity between "the haves and the have nots" and also that hard truths/the greater good are being ignored in favour of societies where it's more important to not upset anyone, rather than discuss/act upon 'hard/painful truths', especially when it's those occupying the 'bottom rungs' of society are those being most adversely affected.

    There is a time for a variety of political stances/ideologies. Rigidly sticking to anyone one ideology is in my opinion a bad thing no matter which system is in place. I've never liked any kind of "one size fits all" approach.

  6. #256
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    everywhere and nowhere
    Posts
    2,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Nineteenx View Post
    Most of what the UK achieved was built on socialism, well, a form of socialism, it worked for years, the UK's become increasingly broken and divided since the Tories changed from a system that worked incredibly successfully to Reeganomics, the only thing thats going to arrest the Uk's slide is returning to the model that worked and binning off Reeganomics. Every single one of the major issues in the UK has been caused by Reeganomics, if you follow a model like that, you're going to end up with a society like that and thats what's caused the UK to go to shit.

    Any model for society is workable but can be easily broken by excessive greed. Capitalism could work fine without the excessive greed, in the old system we had socialism and capitalism running side by side in relative harmony, there wasn't this US ideal of smashing profit margins every year, banking and investment was conducted far more responsibly and that benefited the majority, because they could save and have bank accounts that would give them reasonable returns on their savings, they could borrow money without excessive interest and it was pretty well balanced. People got paid a fair wage for fair work because there wasn't the excessive greed or number of interested parties (investors) in businesses that wanted people working for as little as possible again to try and maximise and increase their profits year on year. People doing normal jobs, that would be zero hour contract jobs in today's Tory society could buy a house or get a council house in their early twenties, have 2 or 3 kids and feed and clothe them. Obsolesence and the witholding of the newest technology only to release it in phases a year to 18 months after each next higher tech model wasn't anywhere like as rife.

    It's as you saym down to what really are a few very very greedy bastards who want more money than they can ever spend and are quite happy to see billions of other people suffer to achieve that
    Agree with all you've mentioned here.
    For anyone who's unaware, "Reeganomics" in the UK occurred thanks to a certain Margaret Thatcher's Tory government.
    Bankers, I seem to recall, were de-regulated under the Tories at the time, which led to "loadsamoney" Harry Enfield types.
    I believe the de-regulation of the banking industry eventually resulted in the financial meltdown that happened in the early 2000s.
    There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief

  7. #257
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    15,547
    Quote Originally Posted by stevie harkness View Post
    I wasn't talking about money or redistribution of wealth. I was talking about everyone having a roof over their head and food to eat and clothes to wear, "contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need". Nobody needs money if their needs are met (unless they don't trust the future).... This is how families work, and family can extend beyond the walls of a home.

    Perhaps the terms "left wing/right wing" doesn't adequately describe it so we're not talking about the same thing, but that's my sense of what left wing / right wing are. Even if deep down we know that both wings belong to the same bird. And it's a cuckoo.

    When the Bushmen of the Kalahari return from a hunt they give some meat to the poor widow who contributed nothing except her prayers...why? Some mandate from the boss? tradition? honouring the ancestors? or just because it's the decent thing to do? (or because the meat is going to quickly go off in the hot sun?) whatever, their society works.

    The right thing to do is to do the right thing.
    I think left wing and right wing ideals are best placed on the macroeconomic level. How a nation runs. Given that just about every economist understands the abhorently failed nature of socialism in economics, the moder left really has conceded this issue. They tend to be more about how money is spent, higher taxes and bigger government and the right less taxes and limited government. The right really has won out on the basic economic argument.

    Thereafter the left v right applies next to social policies. The right more traditional and less risky in how it alters society. Whereas the left love to rebel, revolutionise the system and bring far more risk to social stability.

    The home doesnt really fit the ideals well imo. When it comes to the household the idea makes more sense in say generalizations.
    Right wing house: dads more likely to serve and die in the army, mommy an accountant,more likely to indulge in history and traditionalists, more likely to have a pure or pedigree breed dog, and a dog that will defend the family members and always attack those outside the family.

    Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.

    In your family/community how much do you share with the widows and pensioners from your weekly hunt/pay packet ?

  8. #258
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    15,547
    Quote Originally Posted by RedNoodle View Post
    There will always be a few "greedy barstewards" who will want more and more even if that's at the expense of the less fortunate, namely because it's human nature to want more and because there will always be those who have faulty 'moral compasses. That is why true socialism will not work. You need a system which allows for personal freedom, individual goals etc but also makes sure that those most in need are taken care of and given ample opportunity themselves to be given the means and freedom to pursue their own individual goals.

    The trouble is that there is too big a disparity between "the haves and the have nots" and also that hard truths/the greater good are being ignored in favour of societies where it's more important to not upset anyone, rather than discuss/act upon 'hard/painful truths', especially when it's those occupying the 'bottom rungs' of society are those being most adversely affected.

    There is a time for a variety of political stances/ideologies. Rigidly sticking to anyone one ideology is in my opinion a bad thing no matter which system is in place. I've never liked any kind of "one size fits all" approach.
    Theres a lot in this post noods.
    There is a real limit to what can be done. Human desire is insatiable, think that's something that is lost on many, sometimes you've (plural) just got to be happy with what you've got in life. If you're typing on the internet even with ailments you're likely having it better than most have throughout history and not trying to underscore the impacts of poor health.
    I wouldnt necessarily think that affluent people are much greedier than others. Just more productive and prudent. They get a rather bad name in ways, 50 grand a year iirc puts you in the top 10% of global wealth and likely the top1% of all time easily. You try tell someone who earns 50 grand a year they earn too much and you're increasing taxes and they simply won't agree. Greed isn't specific to the upper classes either imo, nor even to money.

    There is extreme wealth and taxation of super wealth is an issue, or the non taxation of super wealth more aptly.
    During ww2 in the states iirc corporation tax was 85% - this meant that corporation's were heavily incentivised to reinvest money into their business or develop further business interest so as to avoid losing their wealth to the tax man. Instead they'd put the money into further assets or their own business and develop their wealth through increasing capital/share prices.
    Today thanks in no small part due to Ireland and others corporate tax rates have been or will be reduced in the UK and USA to 15%, we still offer lower at 12.5% and these are just official rates even in France big multinationals pay less than 12% where they provide jobs. Apple et al said to pay a fractional interest rate here and Google iirc is sitting on at least 300 billion in cash reserves. There is no incentive for them to risk the capital so they dont invest it. Its idle money.

    Redebreck hit upon it earlier imo, that people while they'd have been materially poorer in the past would've had stronger communities made up of larger families within shorter distances of each other. Today there are old people dying of loneliness.

  9. #259
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    City of Self Doubt
    Posts
    13,982
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTV View Post
    Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.
    I think I threw up a little.
    Etiamsi omnes, ego non

  10. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTV View Post
    I think left wing and right wing ideals are best placed on the macroeconomic level. How a nation runs. Given that just about every economist understands the abhorently failed nature of socialism in economics, the moder left really has conceded this issue. They tend to be more about how money is spent, higher taxes and bigger government and the right less taxes and limited government. The right really has won out on the basic economic argument.

    Thereafter the left v right applies next to social policies. The right more traditional and less risky in how it alters society. Whereas the left love to rebel, revolutionise the system and bring far more risk to social stability.

    The home doesnt really fit the ideals well imo. When it comes to the household the idea makes more sense in say generalizations.
    Right wing house: dads more likely to serve and die in the army, mommy an accountant,more likely to indulge in history and traditionalists, more likely to have a pure or pedigree breed dog, and a dog that will defend the family members and always attack those outside the family.

    Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.

    In your family/community how much do you share with the widows and pensioners from your weekly hunt/pay packet ?
    I stick to my original premise that a nation is made up of millions of homes. If the macro doesn’t fit the micro or vice versa then that suggests to me that there is something fundamentally wrong. “How you do one thing you do all things”. At what point does it not fit? Home...street...village...over 200 people? So what is to be done? (Nothing, there’s too much money to be made!)

    Economists aren’t necessarily right about what really matters in life, they are only of any use if your original premise and assumption is to make everything about money. That is flawed in my opinion. So whoever ‘wins out’ on an economic argument is a hollow victory.

    I find it unnecessarily personal to ask how much of my money I share but okay, I give 10% of my takings. I practice tithing - for personal reasons, not religious - mostly via the local food bank, it doesn’t always sit right with me that they often ask for what I consider unhealthy food but their needs fluctuate so fresh fruit and veg is not always practical for them. Sometimes I switch to helping the local homeless hostel. The fact that we need food banks and homeless hostels in so called great Britain is sufficient proof to me that nobody is winning any bullshit economic arguments.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th March 2019, 01:11 PM
  2. Another Firmino Thread
    By Joetan991 in forum Football Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 7th March 2019, 04:33 PM
  3. Another Ramos thread !
    By philfatkid in forum Football Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 26th November 2018, 04:02 PM
  4. Liverpool vs PSG (Match Thread)
    By RedNoodle in forum Football Forum
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 20th September 2018, 11:48 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •