Is there any hope? Our country is ruined. It is a smeg hole. I am fed up. **** Brown

[Ponty]

3? Surely your sub could waste them before breakfast?

 

I shall cease my concern about an Iranian Naval assault.

[Thedelldays]

3? Surely your sub could waste them before breakfast?

 

I shall cease my concern about an Iranian Naval assault.

yes we could waste them in an afternoon...but we could do that to most subs around the world....there are few that are better than a T-class RN sub..

[Jillyanne]

yes we could waste them in an afternoon...but we could do that to most subs around the world....there are few that are better than a T-class RN sub..

 

You never did answer my question on a previous thread - do you tell your family where you are going when you 'go to work'?

[Thedelldays]

You never did answer my question on a previous thread - do you tell your family where you are going when you 'go to work'?

sorry

 

depends on what we are doing...I am due away at the end of the month for 2-3 weeks and then back for a week and my family etc know what I am doing...but the end of march to the end of may we are away and cannot say where...

 

never used to be as tight lipped but believe it or not facebook is the worst thing for secret ops in the forces..in the last year or so there have been many cases where family and friends and indeed serving personel have posted details of some sort of thing they should not be...

 

the MOD monitor facebook and myspace and other sites 24/7......

 

also, in plymouth and a lesser extent pompey, hostile intel gathering goes on daily...buy mostly eastern europeans looking to glean info from us in anyway......

Edited 15 February, 2009 by Thedelldays

[costasaint]

Thatcher started all this by de-regulating the banks and this policy has been continued by Labour.How ironic that the banks who used to whinge like **** about state interferance come running to the government cap in hand when they screw up!

As for the capitalist system - why do you think we have a high standard of living? It's because of cheap goods.Why are they cheap? Because they are made in 3rd world sweat shops where people have no rights or freedom.The system is flawed.And what about India which is a capitalist country.Have you see the slums in Calcutta? Hardly something to boast about! "Every winner means a loser in the Western dream"

[1976_Child]

seeing as how we are now talking about submarines, I have never understood the point of having Trident when it just collects dusts. yeah, yeah, I totally understand the principle of mutually assured destruction and keeping a threat is better than being threatened but wouldn't it be far more fun to actually use Trident every now and again? Just loose off a couple of billion pounds worth of nukes at an unfriendly regime every so often. Would be fun. After all, we all paid for it. Otherwise it is like promising your kid that you will have a fireworks party and then keeping the Fizz Bangs locked away.

[Thedelldays]

seeing as how we are now talking about submarines, I have never understood the point of having Trident when it just collects dusts. yeah, yeah, I totally understand the principle of mutually assured destruction and keeping a threat is better than being threatened but wouldn't it be far more fun to actually use Trident every now and again? Just loose off a couple of billion pounds worth of nukes at an unfriendly regime every so often. Would be fun. After all, we all paid for it. Otherwise it is like promising your kid that you will have a fireworks party and then keeping the Fizz Bangs locked away.

i see your point...but sadly it is a much bigger picture than that..

 

the UK has a place on the permanent security council and the other 4 nations happen to be (as if by luck:rolleyes:) the other 4 world nuclear powers...

 

it is all long winded but the very fact we have these beasts means we have far greater influence in the world...sad but true

[revolution saint]

That is just how the government wish you to believe.

When they came to power they took away the powers of the Bank of England to regulate and left the power to the bankers boys club FSA. they of course couldnt give a toss, and the bankers at the top took a once in a lifetime opportunity to make more money than you can dream of and so their famillies are financially secure for ever. During this time the government went on a spending spree on health and education and wars.the money the city was 'earning' was bringing in taxation that the chancellor loved spending.it then got to a stage where he couldnt reign it in as he was embroiled in the spend spend phiosophy.Blair saw the writing on the wall and has walked away smelling of roses when he was overseeing it as well.

I and others were questioning how houses could go u 15-20% a year when wages were only going up 2-3%. So much so I sold my house 4 years ago and downsized and put the difference away to protect the gain.

Any school kid would think it odd that people could lend 125% to somebody.i f they cant pay a deposit of 1% how will they ever pay 125%. It was madness and the government should have done something eve n as late as the day Northern Rock fell.

 

So the banks screwed up and it's the government's fault? You were arguing earlier for captalism.....surely it's capitalism that got us into this? Unfettered and unregulated markets?

 

What could the government do when the banks started failing? Not put money in and see houses repossessed and savings lost?

 

Whose fault is this? Market or state?

[OldNick]

So the banks screwed up and it's the government's fault? You were arguing earlier for captalism.....surely it's capitalism that got us into this? Unfettered and unregulated markets?

 

What could the government do when the banks started failing? Not put money in and see houses repossessed and savings lost?

 

Whose fault is this? Market or state?

Well both, if you take away the powers of the Bank of England to stop the transgressions you are left open for peoples greed to take over.The Government did so and the also enjoyed spending the spoils the City brought in on taxes.If speeding regulations were dropped by the Goverenment and only run by people who were likely to speed it would not be long until cars were going along at 150mph,when there was a massive pileup who would you blame then?

Imagine you had the chance to make enough money in 2-3 years to allow your family to live in luxury for generations, but in the back of your mind it might mean messing up the system.

It would be legally OK but morally wrong what would you do? I myself truely am not sure but probably would veer to the security for life.By taking the regulations away the Government effectivily gave the higher echelon of bankers that opportunity.Forget not many of them were not British and so not too worried about us and the ones that were can now sit back on their deckchaors.

Iam a capitalist but do not condone the excesses those bankers have had. As for being revolutionary , give me a break.Under any socialist system the ones at the top only live like royalty but with more excess.

[Johnny Bognor]

I don't see your point that capitalism is essential to distribution of wealth. In fact capitalism is all about consolidating wealth in the hands of the priviledged minority.

 

Capitalism is about exploitation. Exploitation of the workers, exploitation of the consumer.

 

Goods should be priced by what they cost to produce and and not what people are prepared to pay.

 

Capitalism is essential to the distribution of wealth, because you can't distribute something until it is created. The other mechanisms may be better at distributing, but infortunately destroy wealth.

 

And the problem with even suggesting a system where money is abolished is that people already have a stigma with the alternative methods, socialism/communism. Neither of these systems are truly free of monetary influence, since every country who runs an economic system opposed to capitalism must deal with other capitalist states.

 

Why must a country deal with other capitalist states? North Korea don't and nor do Cuba ......and all their citizens are better off as a result....not.

 

And I'm not talking about each man working to contribute to the state in the commonly thought sense of socialism, we have the technology within us now to eliminate the need for vast swathes of the work we do, leaving us to concentrate on advancing our civilization as a whole, rather than working for 'the man'.

 

What? The technology created by capitalism? Do you think that this technology will continue to develop without the drive to make future profits? The biggest technological advances have been made by the need to make profit or the need to defeat an enemy.

 

When salary and commitment to meeting bills is removed, our concentration will soon move to expanding our understanding of the planet, ourselves, and the universe we live in.

 

Our basic needs are to be fed and housed - the most basic human societies understand this more than anyone. Until this can be removed - which it can't as someone has to make the food and distribute it - commitment to meeting the bills will never go away.

 

As a planet we have the capacity to solve all of todays wars, poverty and food shortages by re-applying our efforts. We simply cannot advance as a species, with the promise that we have, whilst we are in the grip of capitalism.

 

 

You really are already on another planet. Mankind has advanced more in the last 150 years than the last 150,000 years. Until the 1800's we had barely advanced beyond the civilisation that the Romans had brought 1800 years earlier. This started with the industrial revolution and the early components of capitalism.

 

 

For your plan to work, you need to remove human nature - it is not possible to create your ideal world with humans as they are. Perhaps a catastophic plague or all out nuclear war may make the survivors refocus ...... but you might not survive to see it.

Edited 15 February, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[revolution saint]

Well both, if you take away the powers of the Bank of England to stop the transgressions you are left open for peoples greed to take over.The Government did so and the also enjoyed spending the spoils the City brought in on taxes.If speeding regulations were dropped by the Goverenment and only run by people who were likely to speed it would not be long until cars were going along at 150mph,when there was a massive pileup who would you blame then?

Imagine you had the chance to make enough money in 2-3 years to allow your family to live in luxury for generations, but in the back of your mind it might mean messing up the system.

It would be legally OK but morally wrong what would you do? I myself truely am not sure but probably would veer to the security for life.By taking the regulations away the Government effectivily gave the higher echelon of bankers that opportunity.Forget not many of them were not British and so not too worried about us and the ones that were can now sit back on their deckchaors.

Iam a capitalist but do not condone the excesses those bankers have had. As for being revolutionary , give me a break.Under any socialist system the ones at the top only live like royalty but with more excess.

 

I don't think the bank of england had any powers taken away from them, if anything they were strengthened. Politicians no longer dictated interest rates - bankers did.

 

Seems to me that in a capitalist society greed is lauded (whilst everything is good) and then those people are abdicated responsibility because...well, it's the state's fault for not regulating better.

 

As for revolutionary? I can't remember ever advocating or being a revolutionary so I'm innocent on that score. Apart from the username obviously. However I would point out that any economic or political system is subject to subversion by greedy people. In capitalist states those people become bankers and rich.....in socialist states they become politicians. Neither is good. The difference is that greedy robbing bankers are not accountable, whereas (in theory) politicians are.

 

Capitalism is essential to the distribution of wealth, because you can't distribute something until it is created. The other mechanisms may be better at distributing, but infortunately destroy wealth.

 

 

 

Why must a country deal with other capitalist states? North Korea don't and nor do Cuba ......and all their citizens are better off as a result....not.

 

 

 

What? The technology created by capitalism? Do you think that this technology will continue to develop without the drive to make future profits? The biggest technological advances have been made by the need to make profit or the need to defeat an enemy.

 

 

 

Our basic needs are to be fed and housed - the most basic human societies understand this more than anyone. Until this can be removed - which it can't as someone has to make the food and distribute it - commitment to meeting the bills will never go away.

 

 

 

 

You really are already on another planet. Mankind has advanced more in the last 150 years than the last 150,000 years. Until the 1800's we had barely advanced beyond the civilisation that the Romans had brought 1800 years earlier. This started with the industrial revolution and the early components of capitalism.

 

 

For your plan to work, you need to remove human nature - it is not possible to create your ideal world with humans as they are. Perhaps a catastophic plague or all out nuclear war may make the survivors refocus ...... but you might not survive to see it.

 

 

I'm struggling with the concept that only capitalism produces wealth. You'll have to help me out on that. Only capitalism would put a price based on what someone is prepared to pay and not what something is worth though.

[Thedelldays]

Only capitalism would put a price based on what someone is prepared to pay and not what something is worth though.

 

 

how else do you value something..?

[Window Cleaner]

I can see a revolution coming. The country is ****ed. Bankrupt. Adrift. Gordon Brown is a t0sser, DEBT DEBT DEBT DEBT DEBT DEBT DEBT... why not stop and ask the question:

 

If DEBT got us into this mess, how exactly is more DEBT going to get us out of it?

 

Doctor: I am very sorry to say but you have lung cancer.

Patient: Sh!t it is the end of the world!

Doctor: Don't worry, smoke even more and you will be fine!

 

Duhhhhh! How ****ing dumb is this idiot running our country?

 

There is no hope. The world as I have known it all 33 years of my life is about to get very different. And to cap it all, I can't even have a bit of light relief with my football club, cause that is also a train wreck.

 

So, here am I at 33 years old. Well educated, articulate, bright and yet I am having to work harder and harder just to stand still. I live in a ****ing tiny box of a rented flat, crammed into a block with 12 other families, in a ****ing dirty **** hole called Brighton, in one of the most densely populated parts of the country which doesn't even have a functioning parliament anymore - only a puppet parliament bowing down to their European Masters. Where exactly is this Golden Age the new millennium was supposed to bring? ****ed if I know.

 

I have no savings worth speaking of (although I will save £450 next season by refusing to buy a ST), I don't even know what a pension looks like, but the Brighton council has just put up my council tax bill so that they can fund their employees pensions.

 

Politicians are totally corrupt, not asking am I genuinely entitled to this expense claim, but instead asking "is it legal, can i get away with it". ****ing disgust me all of them. Vermin. Parasites. Arrogant swine.

 

In all honesty I would rather I didn't do well in school. If I was a dumb illiterate dole-monkey I would not care. The problem is I have always been led to believe that if you try and better yourself then you can achieve. Not in this ****ing country you can't. **** it. I am going down the pub to watch the egg-chasers. Hope we beat those taffy bastards. Need something to smile about.

 

**** this country. I will always be an Englishman but at the moment I am NOT proud to be one.

 

 

But 1976C the country has been fuelled by debt for the last 15 years.

The "green shoots of recovery" were fuelled by debt.

No self respecting Briton can let himself be less well off than his neighbour. I mean I know this, my brother lives in a council house,he pays f*ck all rent,although he works very hard. His Mrs is a lazy slag, worked 2 days in 30 odd years,although he doesn't own the place he has built a conservatory,a swimming pool, a greenhouse etc etc, but his neighbour,who is on benefits has done exactly the same, paid for by benefits and rent arrears.Until the nation links debt to how much people can actually afford to pay greedy banks will fail.

I live in rural France, 2 miles down the road there is a "holiday village". They get Dutch,Germans,Belgians and English there. The English always have the biggest cars,the flashest camper vans and the most kids.They also get the most ****ed the most time per week and get the highest number of visits to the local nick for drug offences.

The UK is decadent because no-one wants to accept that they are poor and less well off than anyone else.The fact that it's governed by a moron is incidental.

[1976_Child]

The UK is decadent because no-one wants to accept that they are poor and less well off than anyone else.The fact that it's governed by a moron is incidental.

 

You're so correct. The thing I am strugling to comprehend is that I own nothing of much value - and I am also lucky to have not a single pound of debt. If I e-bayed my worldly possesions I reckon I would get about £7,000. That is what I have marked my 'assets' down as on my personal balance sheet. I ain't got a house or a shiny car or a trust fund or a stock market account or anything else. I earned about £22,000 last year by working friggin hard. That is an 'above average' wage in the UK. And at that level I can't save a solitary penny. I don't go on holiday anywhere, I don't eat out, I don't wear expensive clothes or anything luxurious. The only thing I do is attend the footy (which I will be doing less of next season).

 

So I have spent this weekend playing with spreadsheets and trying to work out how much I must earn and how much I must save in order to have a semi-decent retirement. Basically, the nub is that starting from right now I must save at least £10,000 of post-tax income per year, hope for an average over the next 30 years of inflation of only 3% per year and interest rates of at least 7% per year in order to be able to retire at 65 with a nest egg of £600,000 which will be enough to buy an annuity of £25,000 for each year of my retirement.

 

So the assumptions are:

 

1. I must save at least £10,000 per year (£833 per month) from taxed income

2. I must pray that average inflation is 'only' 3% over the next 30 years

3. I can get a good safe rate of return of 7% per year (real rate 7%-3% = 4%)

 

In order to be able to save £10,000 per year I must earn a gross income of £40,000 per year, handing over £10,500 in taxes (present rates) leaving me with £1,633 per month after saving the £10,000. Out of this £1,600 some ****ing how I have to save for a deposit for a house and pay a mortgage (which will now be impossible to get, at least not above 75% of value). Then the sodding council help them selves to £100 per month and on and on and on.

 

So a lot of assumptions and basically it looks ****. Life in Britain at the moment, from where I am sitting - aspirational but not wealthy - is a piece of turd. How the **** am I going to earn £40,000 just like that? Bull****. What is the point. **** off Gordon **** Head Brown.

 

Oh yeah, and all my calculations are based on just me. It might be nice to dream about starting a family but that would seriously crucify my finances so I guess my sperm can stay where they are for now.

Edited 15 February, 2009 by 1976_Child

[Window Cleaner]

You're so correct. The thing I am strugling to comprehend is that I own nothing of much value - and I am also lucky to have not a single pound of debt. If I e-bayed my worldly possesions I reckon I would get about £7,000. That is what I have marked my 'assets' down as on my personal balance sheet. I ain't got a house or a shiny car or a trust fund or a stock market account or anything else. I earned about £22,000 last year by working friggin hard. That is an 'above average' wage in the UK. And at that level I can't save a solitary penny. I don't go on holiday anywhere, I don't eat out, I don't wear expensive clothes or anything luxurious. The only thing I do is attend the footy (which I will be doing less of next season).

 

So I have spent this weekend playing with spreadsheets and trying to work out how much I must earn and how much I must save in order to have a semi-decent retirement. Basically, the nub is that starting from right now I must save at least £10,000 of post-tax income per year, hope for an average over the next 30 years of inflation of only 3% per year and interest rates of at least 7% per year in order to be able to retire at 65 with a nest egg of £600,000 which will be enough to buy an annuity of £25,000 for each year of my retirement.

 

So the assumptions are:

 

1. I must save at least £10,000 per year (£833 per month) from taxed income

2. I must pray that average inflation is 'only' 3% over the next 30 years

3. I can get a good safe rate of return of 7% per year (real rate 7%-3% = 4%)

 

In order to be able to save £10,000 per year I must earn a gross income of £40,000 per year, handing over £10,500 in taxes (present rates) leaving me with £1,633 per month after saving the £10,000. Out of this £1,600 some ****ing how I have to save for a deposit for a house and pay a mortgage (which will now be impossible to get, at least not above 75% of value). Then the sodding council help them selves to £100 per month and on and on and on.

 

So a lot of assumptions and basically it looks ****. Life in Britain at the moment, from where I am sitting - aspirational but not wealthy - is a piece of turd. How the **** am I going to earn £40,000 just like that? Bull****. What is the point. **** off Gordon **** Head Brown.

 

Oh yeah, and all my calculations are based on just me. It might be nice to dream about starting a family but that would seriously crucify my finances so I guess my sperm can stay where they are for now.

 

 

 

A word of advice.

If you have talent and the ability to exploit it,then quit that rat-hole and get a life elsewhere.Somewhere where talent is perceived for what it's worth, a

thief is a thief and an idiot is an idiot and not someone to throw thousands of taxpayers money at in the guise of "help".

[Weston Super Saint]

Capitalism does not work. Where there is rich, there must be poor. Where there are affluent countries, there will always be bankrupt, where there are the greedy, there will also be the malnourished.

 

Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth without thought or conscience for those suffering. Humanity will only produce a fair society for all of the planets inhabitants once capitalism is abolished.

 

Yes it is!

 

Now which part of that doesn't work?

[1976_Child]

A word of advice.

If you have talent and the ability to exploit it,then quit that rat-hole and get a life elsewhere.Somewhere where talent is perceived for what it's worth, a

thief is a thief and an idiot is an idiot and not someone to throw thousands of taxpayers money at in the guise of "help".

 

Good advice. I am slowly coming round to this point of view. Now all I have to do is find a country which needs me, has plenty of open space (I don't want to live in a shoe box), preferably where I don't have to learn another language (French is ok), and somewhere where the government is not so totally incompetent as to bankrupt the country. I must stress that I must be actively wanted by the country. I have always been against mass immigration in our own country so I would be very hypocritical if I then took someone else's job... I'm thinking:

 

1. Australia

2. New Zealand

3. Canada

4. South Africa (kinda, not a great choice, but it is sunny and the chicks are gorgeous)

5. Antarctica - think penguins are cool.

6. Do a VSO in Africa for 10 years, get paid tax free and save it all...

 

but top of my list, and because it is still the best place for dreams to come true is...

 

7. The United States of America. If I could get a US work permit I wouldn't even bother to pack, I would be at the airport quicker than speedy gonzales.

 

EDIT: and I know I said that the country had better not be bankrupt, and the US is carrying an eye-watering federal deficit but at least the dollar is still the world's reserve currency and they have ten aircraft carriers to keep it that way...

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm struggling with the concept that only capitalism produces wealth. You'll have to help me out on that. Only capitalism would put a price based on what someone is prepared to pay and not what something is worth though.

 

Capitalism isn't the only way of creating wealth, but the best method of creating wealth. HTH

 

However, I am struggling with the concept that worth is not what someone is prepared to pay for it - You'll have to help me out on that. How do you value something and what is the worth of something if it is not based on what someone is prepared to pay?

[Baj]

Capitalism is essential to the distribution of wealth, because you can't distribute something until it is created. The other mechanisms may be better at distributing, but infortunately destroy wealth.

 

 

 

Why must a country deal with other capitalist states? North Korea don't and nor do Cuba ......and all their citizens are better off as a result....not.

 

 

 

What? The technology created by capitalism? Do you think that this technology will continue to develop without the drive to make future profits? The biggest technological advances have been made by the need to make profit or the need to defeat an enemy.

 

 

 

Our basic needs are to be fed and housed - the most basic human societies understand this more than anyone. Until this can be removed - which it can't as someone has to make the food and distribute it - commitment to meeting the bills will never go away.

 

 

 

 

You really are already on another planet. Mankind has advanced more in the last 150 years than the last 150,000 years. Until the 1800's we had barely advanced beyond the civilisation that the Romans had brought 1800 years earlier. This started with the industrial revolution and the early components of capitalism.

 

 

For your plan to work, you need to remove human nature - it is not possible to create your ideal world with humans as they are. Perhaps a catastophic plague or all out nuclear war may make the survivors refocus ...... but you might not survive to see it.

 

Trash, countries like Cuba don't deal with capitalist countries?? How can I take the rest seriously? in 2008 it was estimated that Cuba exported goods and services to the value of around $3.5 BILLION , everything from sugar to medical products, they have over $4 billion in foreign stock, even North Korea exported $1.4 billion in goods.

 

The essence of the rest of your post I agree with, completely. Humanity in it's current state is too immature to overcome its greed for the greater good, hell, with every intention I include myself in that. I also agree, it will take something catastrophic for a global change of focus.

[Thedelldays]

they have ten aircraft carriers to keep it that way...

you question the need for us to have trident..

 

they spend something like One Trillion dollars a year on defence....

 

they spend more on defence than every other country on earth put together

 

we have 4 trident carrying subs they have 14...

[1976_Child]

you question the need for us to have trident..

 

they spend something like One Trillion dollars a year on defence....

 

they spend more on defence than every other country on earth put together

 

eh? My Trident post was a tongue-in-cheek post! I have always been an ardent supporter of a strong, well equipped forces including a nuclear deterrent.

[Thedelldays]

eh? My Trident post was a tongue-in-cheek post! I have always been an ardent supporter of a strong, well equipped forces including a nuclear deterrent.

 

then you will love the yanks

[1976_Child]

 

then you will love the yanks

 

I already do! I think they are sweet and cuddly, but with sharp teeth if need be...

[Johnny Bognor]

Trash, countries like Cuba don't deal with capitalist countries?? How can I take the rest seriously? in 2008 it was estimated that Cuba exported goods and services to the value of around $3.5 BILLION , everything from sugar to medical products, they have over $4 billion in foreign stock, even North Korea exported $1.4 billion in goods.

 

The essence of the rest of your post I agree with, completely. Humanity in it's current state is too immature to overcome its greed for the greater good, hell, with every intention I include myself in that. I also agree, it will take something catastrophic for a global change of focus.

 

 

I kind of knew you would say that and I wanted to draw you in...here is how it goes. So then Cuba isn't truly communist, nor is China and you have to ask why. The reason is that it does not work, which was my original point. Even communism can't survive without capitalism (look at the USSR) whilst Capitalism can survive without Communism - because - it works.

 

With regards to humanity and how we live, that Survivor series on BBC recently did make me ponder somewhat - but even in a crisis, the basic human traits such as greed and envy don't go away. There whilst we all live and breath, the problems of the world won't go away and the best mechanism for development is still capitalism. That's just the way it is.......

Edited 15 February, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[1976_Child]

I kind of knew you would say that and I wanted to draw you in...here is how it goes. So then Cuba isn't truly communist, nor is China and you have to ask why. The reason is that it does not work, which was my original point. Even communism can't survive without capitalism (look at the USSR) whilst Capitalism can survive without Communism.

 

That Survivor series on BBC recently did make me ponder somewhat.

 

Marx also maintained that no communist society would ever last long unless it had first gone through a sustained period of capitalist growth before hand, in order to get to a level of advancement which could ultiimately sustain communism.

[Baj]

I kind of knew you would say that and I wanted to draw you in...here is how it goes. So then Cuba isn't truly communist, nor is China and you have to ask why. The reason is that it does not work, which was my original point. Even communism can't survive without capitalism (look at the USSR) whilst Capitalism can survive without Communism - because - it works.

 

No, actually BS (no pun intended), if you read my original post you will see that I said the world cannot switch to a non-capitalist system unless it all switches at once, and that all countries considered by people to be communist are not truly communist since they rely on capitalist states. Seriously, read my posts first before you want to tell me something I've already said.

 

And the problem with even suggesting a system where money is abolished is that people already have a stigma with the alternative methods, socialism/communism. Neither of these systems are truly free of monetary influence, since every country who runs an economic system opposed to capitalism must deal with other capitalist states. One country cannot change alone, the system must change globally, in one move.

[revolution saint]

Capitalism isn't the only way of creating wealth, but the best method of creating wealth. HTH

 

However, I am struggling with the concept that worth is not what someone is prepared to pay for it - You'll have to help me out on that. How do you value something and what is the worth of something if it is not based on what someone is prepared to pay?

 

Worth based on what a product cost to produce? For example, I have a pair of trainers that cost 20 quid to make - I sell them for 30 quid. Fine I make a small profit. However, I move the factory that makes the trainers to Indonesia and the trainers cost £10 quid and if I put a nike "swoosh" on them then I sell them for £50. Bill Hicks didn't tell marketing people to kill themselves for nothing.

 

Now you can argue that it's consumer choice to pay over the odds, and you'd be right. But what happens when someone offers a loan to pay for whatever it is I'm told I want? Maybe it's a bank. Everyone in that bank takes the risk I can't pay it back and all for something I either don't need or is overpriced.

 

My point is it's not government that caused this problem, it's the very nature of capitalism.

[Johnny Bognor]

No, actually BS (no pun intended), if you read my original post you will see that I said the world cannot switch to a non-capitalist system unless it all switches at once, and that all countries considered by people to be communist are not truly communist since they rely on capitalist states. Seriously, read my posts first before you want to tell me something I've already said.

 

To be fair, even if the world switched simultaneously to this new system, the end result would be....it would not work because of human nature. Therefore, it will never happen. In the meantime, Capitalism rocks and no one can come up with a workable and realistic alternative that would benefit mankind.

[revolution saint]

To be fair, even if the world switched simultaneously to this new system, the end result would be....it would not work because of human nature. Therefore, it will never happen. In the meantime, Capitalism rocks and no one can come up with a workable and realistic alternative that would benefit mankind.

 

Exactly, human nature screws up any system. The difference is capitalism positively lauds greed, it worships it, feeds on it and ultimately relies on it. Capitalism doesn't rock, it sucks.

[Johnny Bognor]

Worth based on what a product cost to produce? For example, I have a pair of trainers that cost 20 quid to make - I sell them for 30 quid. Fine I make a small profit. However, I move the factory that makes the trainers to Indonesia and the trainers cost £10 quid and if I put a nike "swoosh" on them then I sell them for £50. Bill Hicks didn't tell marketing people to kill themselves for nothing.

 

How do you arrive at the cost of production? This is determined by capitalism.

 

Let me spell it out for you......the cost of production is a combination of labour and materials. The cost of labour is a combination of what the employer is prepared to pay (buy) and what the employee is prepared to take (sell). The materials are what the leather trader is prepared to pay the cattle trader which is what the cattle trader is prepared to pay the farmer and what the farmer is prepared to pay the agricultural supplier and vets and so on and so on. So even your cost of £20 includes profits for all of the people along the line (capitalists if you like) and therefore the cost of £20 is determined by the nature of capitalism. The end product is then sold at a price the consumer is prepared to pay - if they didn't pay it, Nike would be bust as they would not sell any shoes.

 

 

Now you can argue that it's consumer choice to pay over the odds, and you'd be right. But what happens when someone offers a loan to pay for whatever it is I'm told I want? Maybe it's a bank. Everyone in that bank takes the risk I can't pay it back and all for something I either don't need or is overpriced.

 

My point is it's not government that caused this problem, it's the very nature of capitalism.

 

No one forces you to buy the trainers, so more fool you if you borrow too much to pay for them. I think you are mistaking Capitalism for Consumerism....two different things. The purchase of goods you cannot afford is not Capitalism and capitalism existed before credit cards.

 

Consumerism is more down to human nature and is the pursuit of hapiness through consumption and materialism - consumerism is the problem and not capitalism.

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism

 

You could argue that we are living in a state of consumer capitalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_capitalism) but this is very different to purist free market capitalism as consumer capitalism is a deliberate attempt to skew the market (which by definition is not a free market).

 

So we are all to blame to some extent for consumerism as we are all human....but we elect a government to serve in our best interests and this shower of ****e hasn't. This Govt idly stood by and let a lot of people get into the **** - but Crash Gordon (aka Gordon Clown) turned a blind eye (no pun intended) - the debt-built feel-good factor won them another election, so our elected representatives failed us big time. I think it was deliverate....you could call it buying an election....either that or he really is a complete buffoon / idiot.

Edited 15 February, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[TopGun]

Exactly, human nature screws up any system. The difference is capitalism positively lauds greed, it worships it, feeds on it and ultimately relies on it. Capitalism doesn't rock, it sucks.

 

But it is inevitable in the long run. Countries like Cuba have not benefited from state control overall. And in any case scams occur.

 

It's arguable that places in the middle east are actually vaguely socialist as the people get a form of equality if not voting rights. Like Orwell. But they have oil cash to back it up.

 

Venezuala is obviously the most interesting socialist state currently being oil rich and in the US back yard.

[OldNick]

I don't think the bank of england had any powers taken away from them, if anything they were strengthened. Politicians no longer dictated interest rates - bankers did.

 

Well the powers to regulate the financial system was taken away when Labour came into power. It was then left as a self regulatory system for the FSA.

[Saint George]

Although not the only reason for today's financial crisis, the seeds were sown back in the Carter and Clinton administrations. Where they spiked Capitalism with a touch of socialism....kinda like spiking someones drink with a mixture of coke and heroin...

 

Before Carter and Clinton, Capitilism was working just fine, but they passed socialist legislation that 'forced' banks to hand out sub prime mortgages, loans and credit....Those that didn't were prsued though the courts by organizations such as Chairman 'O's ACORN....The rest is history as they say......Maggie also made a mistake in believing all council house tenants could be fiscally responsible if they were given the chance...sadly she was wrong....

 

I know of peeps who bought their council houses for crazy discounts...12 - 18k for 60k+ houses...then took out loans on the collateral for extensions and improvements that never happened....instead they blew it on new cars, holidays and general crap....Then found themselves with 90k+ mortgages that they couldn't pay back...

 

Just say 'no' to socialism folks

 

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

 

"But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions. Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

 

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

 

 

 

http://billporterusa.blogspot.com/2008/10/carter-clinton-subprime-crisis.html

 

"America and many Americans are now paying (literally) a heavy price because Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and many inept congressmen and women injected a mega dose of socialism into what was suppose to be a capitalistic society."

 

 

 

1976 Child.....I hear ya....Had the same frustrations myself, although i did ok during the Maggie eara and pretty much set myself up for life.........I cant recommend moving to the USA enough, would be really worth your while to look at all your options.....especially a 'Red' state.....Some of the blue states are nearly as politically ****ed up as the UK.......This maybe a option to consider http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/us/15immig.html?_r=2&ref=us....Dell Days ....You might want to explore those options too....you'll get a whole lot more respect for doing the same job here than you'll ever get in the UK

 

Things are by no means perfect here and can be tough at times......You're definitely held accountable for your actions and have to stand on your own two feet. There's no nanny to tuck you in at night....But you get the freedom to live your dream, nothing's impossible here if you have the will to see it through......Difference between the UK and the US is like visiting the zoo rather than living in it.....No one ever called Americains "a nation of bed wetters"....Although i guess that could change if Chairman 'O' gets to stay in for long enough

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined,” added atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

 

UK scientist David Bellamy, a botanist and environmental campaigner, reversed his view on man-made warming and converted to a skeptic. The *science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science,”

[bungle]

I've read the whole thread, but I still actually want to go back to a point made in the original post.

 

The best way for the government to try and get us out of the recession IS to spend more money, which does lead to further debt. The debate surely should be how they do this. The £12.5billion VAT cut I believe does nothing. That money would be been better spent bringing forward major building projects (thus creating jobs), insulating homes, schools and hospitals (long term gain of saving on energy costs) and buying more train carriages (something the government now looks like it is doing) as well as opening local train stations and electrifying some of the network (providing more sustainable transport for the future).

 

All, or indeed, some of the above would have created jobs now and had a positive effect on the country in years to come.

[Thedelldays]

I've read the whole thread, but I still actually want to go back to a point made in the original post.

 

The best way for the government to try and get us out of the recession IS to spend more money, which does lead to further debt. The debate surely should be how they do this. The £12.5billion VAT cut I believe does nothing. That money would be been better spent bringing forward major building projects (thus creating jobs), insulating homes, schools and hospitals (long term gain of saving on energy costs) and buying more train carriages (something the government now looks like it is doing) as well as opening local train stations and electrifying some of the network (providing more sustainable transport for the future).

 

All, or indeed, some of the above would have created jobs now and had a positive effect on the country in years to come.

 

 

true...you are more in the know than me and even I wondered what the point of the VAT cut was..

 

what about..NO VAT on gas and electric bills...?

[1976_Child]

I've read the whole thread, but I still actually want to go back to a point made in the original post.

 

The best way for the government to try and get us out of the recession IS to spend more money, which does lead to further debt. The debate surely should be how they do this. The £12.5billion VAT cut I believe does nothing. That money would be been better spent bringing forward major building projects (thus creating jobs), insulating homes, schools and hospitals (long term gain of saving on energy costs) and buying more train carriages (something the government now looks like it is doing) as well as opening local train stations and electrifying some of the network (providing more sustainable transport for the future).

 

All, or indeed, some of the above would have created jobs now and had a positive effect on the country in years to come.

 

Ah! A classic Keynesian! This 'spend your way out' theory has its detractors as well. It is well argued that contrary to popular belief the US did not climb out of depression in the late 30's early 40's because of the government spending program (new deal) but because they entered WW2. But then there are those who think that the new deal dit actually work.

 

Either way, what is for sure is that to spend one's way out of a recession/depression it is no good spending on the highstreet. It has to be on massive heavy-infrastructure projects (hoover dam employed thousands) and the money (debt) has to be contained in a closed economic loop where it feeds back into the system.

 

Incidentally this is precisely why the US is able to spend a trillion bukcs a year on the military. It is sustainable (what ever the loony left says) because they only ever buy US made ships and planes and bullets. Net effect is the money recycles within the US.

 

As for the VAT rate cut. It has been a pain in the r-s for me. I spent half a day changing all my invoice templates and accounts system and will have to do like wise when it reverts back. So I lose one whole day of my year for bugger all gain. Why not just reduce the income tax rate by the same amount? That's why Brown is a plonker. He hasn't got a clue what one day of my year costs me! 0.3% of my year. May not sound like much but I have not used that time for fee-earning work...

[miserableoldgit]

Capitalism does not work. Where there is rich, there must be poor. Where there are affluent countries, there will always be bankrupt, where there are the greedy, there will also be the malnourished.

 

Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth without thought or conscience for those suffering. Humanity will only produce a fair society for all of the planets inhabitants once capitalism is abolished.

 

And replaced with what? Communism?? Are you saying that there were not rich and poor in the Eastern Bloc? Not social injustice? Whatever system you introduce, there are always people who want to be top of the pile, that will always want that bit more than everyone else. I am not saying that Capitalism is the be all and end all but there has to be a workable alternative and I am not sure that the Human Race has come up with it yet.

[Hamilton Saint]

Although not the only reason for today's financial crisis, the seeds were sown back in the Carter and Clinton administrations...

 

 

Your criticism of Clinton is strange. His administration saw the longest period of U.S. economic expansion in history. He inherited a $237 billion deficit from Bush Sr. and by the end of his eight-year term had run three budget surpluses in a row. His administration also reduced the national debt by $363 billion. He took the deficit seriously and worked hard to eliminate it (through the use of some unpopular measures).

 

By contrast, take a look at the economic records of Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush. All three were disasters for the U.S. econmy. Deficits and debt ballooned under those three Republican regimes - especially Reagan's and George W's. Their belief that showering tax cuts on the wealthiest of the wealthy would lead to a trickle down benefit to the entire population was shown to be a complete sham. Their approach was ignorant, reckless and foolhardy. They have saddled future generations with an incredible financial burden. And it is the attitudes of the financial elite that their policies fostered which led to the current financial collapse.

[costasaint]

I kind of knew you would say that and I wanted to draw you in...here is how it goes. So then Cuba isn't truly communist, nor is China and you have to ask why. The reason is that it does not work, which was my original point. Even communism can't survive without capitalism (look at the USSR) whilst Capitalism can survive without Communism - because - it works.

 

With regards to humanity and how we live, that Survivor series on BBC recently did make me ponder somewhat - but even in a crisis, the basic human traits such as greed and envy don't go away. There whilst we all live and breath, the problems of the world won't go away and the best mechanism for development is still capitalism. That's just the way it is.......

 

There are no real capitalist countires in the world either as a true capitalist country wouldn't last a week.A free education system , a free health service etc etc are all socialst ideas and wouldn't exist in a true capitalist country.

[Johnny Bognor]

There are no real capitalist countires in the world either as a true capitalist country wouldn't last a week.A free education system , a free health service etc etc are all socialst ideas and wouldn't exist in a true capitalist country.

 

If the socialists could come up with free education, free health service etc I would be mightily impressed - but unfortunately they haven't.

 

The problem is, they are not free are they? Where does the money come from to pay for it?

 

........from the capitalist wealth created. Yes, the wealth created by Capitalism pays for all of this "free" socialist stuff - so thank the capitalists before you thank the socialists.

 

Well I suppose it is free to those who can't be arsed to work, but that is hardly fair is it?

[Baj]

And replaced with what? Communism?? Are you saying that there were not rich and poor in the Eastern Bloc? Not social injustice?

 

Another person who I doubt has read the thread in full to read my earlier comments.

[bridge too far]

If the socialists could come up with free education, free health service etc I would be mightily impressed - but unfortunately they haven't.

 

The problem is, they are not free are they? Where does the money come from to pay for it?

 

........from the capitalist wealth created. Yes, the wealth created by Capitalism pays for all of this "free" socialist stuff - so thank the capitalists before you thank the socialists.

 

Well I suppose it is free to those who can't be arsed to work, but that is hardly fair is it?

 

But THAT wealth is only created by people buying or, in other words, paying.

 

The point about 'free' education, health etc. is that it is free at the point of delivery and access to it does not depend on wealth but on need (especially in the case of health).

 

One of the best health services in the world is in Cuba FYI.

[Johnny Bognor]

But THAT wealth is only created by people buying or, in other words, paying.

 

The point about 'free' education, health etc. is that it is free at the point of delivery and access to it does not depend on wealth but on need (especially in the case of health).

 

One of the best health services in the world is in Cuba FYI.

 

Bloody hell BTF, you took your time joining in with this thread :-)

 

I was beginning to think that you'd given up political debate.

 

Do you mean free at the point of delivery like dentistry or prescriptions?

 

The "free" bit is a deliberate ploy by the left to makes us think we've got something for nothing - as it is, the current bunch of socialists have actually delivered nothing (a screwed economy) for something (100bns of debt) - quite novel don't you think?

[bridge too far]

Bloody hell BTF, you took your time joining in with this thread :-)

 

I was beginning to think that you'd given up political debate.

 

Do you mean free at the point of delivery like dentistry or prescriptions?

 

The "free" bit is a deliberate ploy by the left to makes us think we've got something for nothing - as it is, the current bunch of socialists have actually delivered nothing (a screwed economy) for something (100bns of debt) - quite novel don't you think?

 

Me - give up political debate? Never . I've been babysitting my granddaughter this weekend and away from the virtual world. Quick hop on here before I go off to the Midlands for a couple of days - oh joy

 

I'm old enough to remember when dentistry and prescriptions were free. I honestly don't remember when the charges started and which government introduced them.

 

I don't regard the current government as 'socialist' - far from it. But the screwed economy they've 'delivered' isn't down to the so-called socialism. It's as rife in the capitalist world and is not the fault of this government in isolation, as you well know.

 

That's my lot - early start tomorrow.

[bungle]

true...you are more in the know than me and even I wondered what the point of the VAT cut was..

 

what about..NO VAT on gas and electric bills...?

 

The idea of the VAT cut isn't to make things cheaper, but to encourage people to go out and spend money. Therefore, while the proposal you have suggest might make people better off, I think it is more likely they would save that money, not spend it.

[Thedelldays]

The idea of the VAT cut isn't to make things cheaper, but to encourage people to go out and spend money. Therefore, while the proposal you have suggest might make people better off, I think it is more likely they would save that money, not spend it.

true

 

I just cant see how the VAT cut as it is actually really makes a difference in any way..??

[bungle]

Ah! A classic Keynesian! This 'spend your way out' theory has its detractors as well. It is well argued that contrary to popular belief the US did not climb out of depression in the late 30's early 40's because of the government spending program (new deal) but because they entered WW2. But then there are those who think that the new deal dit actually work.

 

Either way, what is for sure is that to spend one's way out of a recession/depression it is no good spending on the highstreet. It has to be on massive heavy-infrastructure projects (hoover dam employed thousands) and the money (debt) has to be contained in a closed economic loop where it feeds back into the system.

 

I suppose there is an argument to say WWII helped - more military equipment needed to be built = more jobs. However, it would be wrong to dismiss the impact of the New Deal.

 

I would agree that major infrastructure projects are the key, but it is still important to get people to spend what they can afford, rather than just save all their money. There are a number of things that make the economy tick, and consumer spending is one of them. After all, it's no good creating jobs with infrastruture projects only to see many more lost as high street shops close.

[bungle]

true

 

I just cant see how the VAT cut as it is actually really makes a difference in any way..??

 

I don't believe it does either - hence I would have done what I suggested!

[Thedelldays]

I don't believe it does either - hence I would have done what I suggested!

i just dont get it..

 

what was the point......really? I not the most up to date on what ideas will work and even I knew this was pointless..

 

when going to the shops or buying clothes etc...i dont think i have really noticed any real difference in price...maybe a few pence or a whole quid...but jesus

[EastleighSoulBoy]

seeing as how we are now talking about submarines, I have never understood the point of having Trident when it just collects dusts. yeah, yeah, I totally understand the principle of mutually assured destruction and keeping a threat is better than being threatened but wouldn't it be far more fun to actually use Trident every now and again? Just loose off a couple of billion pounds worth of nukes at an unfriendly regime every so often. Would be fun. After all, we all paid for it. Otherwise it is like promising your kid that you will have a fireworks party and then keeping the Fizz Bangs locked away.

 

Of you go then, to a 'far away place'. Don't forget to take a flag to wave, for us to aim at. Live the dream knowing that your contribution to Trident has been well spent.