• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Eastleigh

This is what the left does so well, just try to belittle others opinon and not show any empathy for someones point of view. If you shout enough people down maybe you can feel better about yourself. It is one way of stopping the debate, sort of what the left did with the immgration debate between 2000 and 2008, anyone question it and we will call them racist.

Best way to win a discussion is to stop the other side from discussing things, i must hand it to you lefties when the going gets tough you always resort to type:lol:

I find it quite odd that you see all those things because the reason I stay well clear of politiical discussions on this board is one) I'm always right so why should I need to discuss anything? :) and two) because it's not so much right wing politics I'm against it's usually their supporter's complete inability to empathise or demonstrate a modicum of compassion. Some people on this board appear to believe that any benefit claimant is a parasite and all "socialist" policies are wrong, I'd hazard a guess that without socialist policies over the last sixty years the readership of this board would be down by a substantial percentage because we simply wouldn't be here. I'm talking about infant mortality and better healthcare free at the point of delivery.

I simply can't be bothered with a history lesson every time I see some right wing half wit spouting off but suffice to say there's a good few of us wouldn't be here if we were still in the dingdongensian times some seem to advocate where only the rich and strong survive while everyone else is cast aside or judged as worthless.
 
A large prison population would allow the government to both increase profits for the private prison-management companies they would inevitably sub-contract the facilities out to, and would allow them to appear 'tough on crime'.

There really isn't downside, as far as the right-leaning parties are concerned. And, unfortunately, this age is and will continue to be one where the right wing will gain ascendancy, and will continue to pursue their dismantling of everything liberal movements of the late 19th and early 20th century fought for.

And the worst part is that the liberals let them. We fell for the faux patriotism of phony wars carried out in the name of imaginary threats, and used to take away the freedoms people fought and died for eras ago. We silently acquiesced as the right to detention without charge was extended, we looked the other way when British citizens were renditioned, we tutted when De Menezes was killed because he looked funny. We eagerly followed, sheep-like, as the media led us into one crusade after another against immigrants, 'benefit-scroungers', mothers of ten living in comfortable homes on YOUR hard-earned tax money, the useless, greedy, lazy, scrounging poor. We shrugged as the unions were co-opted and neutered, we pouted as the wages of the top-band of white-collar financiers, managers and CEOs sky-rocketed to seventy, a hundred, two-hundred times what the average worker made because they 'created wealth', we subscribed to the idea of cheap credit being an extension of that 'wealth' being given down to us, as proof that the upper classes were re-distributing the wealth, just like the old days. We laughed as the first warning signs emerged that this credit being given to us was built on faulty premises, that the banks whose job it was to 'create wealth' were doing so splendidly, as long as you were in the top 1 percent, that this miracle of doubling the absolute GDP from 1997 to 2008 might be just a mirage.

No, we followed all that our government told us, because it was 'New Labour'. Because somehow, we imagined that the 'Labour' in the title meant something. We fought for issues like gay rights and an end to gender discrimination, while ignoring the looming threats that lurked behind the government's eagerness to push us into fighting for these things to the detriment of others. We achieved hollow victories indeed, when seen in the greater context.

Because one day, the whole facade came crashing down. The banks tumbled, and it turned out that they had been fooling us all along. There was no redistribution of the 'growth' this country had experienced, because now the banks wanted it all back, now that their fraud had been exposed. They came tumbling down, crashing the economy and forcing millions of people into situations where what was once affordable was now a distant memory. The government spent our tax money propping up those banks, even while they steered us into recession after recession, tumble after tumble. The world economy raced downwards, and the UK went with it. The party was over.

And now, we saw, too late, what had been building for so long. The chair was taken away, the curtain was pulled back and the brick wall behind the stage was revealed. The banks came after the people whose money had saved them, foreclosing homes and seizing assets as the results of a recession they created came to the fore. The conservatives came to power, promising to end the waste and self-indulgence of New Labour. They sold off the NHS to private companies, they cut thousands of government jobs, they slashed welfare and benefits and aid. They closed hospitals, departments, and schools. They cut council funding and arts funding. In short, they slashed away at everything that had epitomised liberal Britain.

But the curious thing is, the ones who started the collapse, the bankers....they still made record bonuses. They pocketed millions even as the economy burned. The super-wealthy put tens of trillions of dollars into offshore tax havens preventing the government's attempts to collect the tax it was owed. The absolute and average incomes of the top one percent increased, even as the rest of the country suffered sharp, cutting drops in their own incomes. Private companies raced to privatise government services like there was no tomorrow. Corporations paid less tax than the common people did, and tried to avoid paying even those taxes whenever they could. All this talk of wealth trickling down was revealed to be what some people had always suspected it to be; utter flimflam.

And, at this supreme moment in our post-WWII history, when everything that generation fought for and voted for is being stripped away in the name of rampant, unfettered capitalism: what do our people do? Do they finally rise up, demanding governmental change? do they fight the police who use batons, water sprays, tasers and rubber bullets to disperse innocent protests?do they march up to the banks and demand change, at the threat of a mass run? Do they, in short, stand up for their rights as citizens of a free, democratic, modernized, post-Beveridge nation?

No. We squabble over the football results. We vote for meaningless Big Brother and X-Factor competitions. We fight for whatever scraps of wealth the government deigns to give us. We live in increasing poverty, seeing homes closed, crime rise and wealth ebb away. And we turn on each other. We castigate the poorest as 'scroungers' without bothering to analyze why society has left them that way, unable to live a dignified life. We castigate poor youths as thieves, criminals and scum, and demand the return of capital punishment they rebel against the hopelessness and emptiness of society the only way they know how; by rioting and stealing. We justify police abuse, repression and mistreatment by assuming that the victims must have asked for it, while thoughtlessly accepting the endless media stories of two brave policewomen, killed by a thug, because it would 'disrespect' the memory of the dead to question either the system they worked under or the policemen/women themselves. We accept surveillance of our phones, our e-mails,and our Facebook accounts because the government needs it to stop 'terrorism'.We ignore the news of the government spying on activist movements and threatening 'miscreants'. And worst of all, we angrily accuse those among us who question this system of unequal distribution of being 'socialists', 'communists', and using 'the politics of envy'.

'Envy', because an average man working today cannot ever, ever hope to reach the levels of wealth that will see him join the ranks of the 'wealthy', in this supposedly merit-based society. 'Envy', because we see the trillions of tax pounds being siphoned away through corporate malfeasance, tax loopholes and share-based bonuses. 'Envy', because the NHS is cut and welfare is slashed while the wealthiest in society grow wealthier in this recession that we're supposedly 'all in together'. 'Envy', because we see companies with the sole motive of earning profits taking over public services, whose sole purpose is to provide for society, not to earn a profit.

So it really doesn't matter who you vote for: UKIP, Conservatives, New Labour, the BNP, the Lib Dems. They're all the same: they've accumulated enough power now that they see no need to give it away again, and nothing short of a catastrophic shift in society will persuade them to do so. All that I know is that there is a popular groundswell of anger building up across the Western world that is denied an outlet, a voice in their own governance and in this system of capitalism. Of course, the attempts to distract this angry populace continue apace; more shows, more football, more token gestures, more tough talk and no action. But less and less people are being taken in. And one day, someone, somewhere will snap. That is probably the only hope we have of seeing change in this right-wing shift. A shift, remember, that we, the proudly self-declared 'Liberal class', actively helped bring in. We fought for gay rights, they took away our freedoms. We fought for an end to inequality, and they granted it to us. We are now all equal. Whether you're an immigrant, gay, lesbian or a woman....you are now a proudly equal citizen, with an equal chance to be spied on, suppressed, told to shut up, and forced to work for spare change while your NHS outlet, welfare check or unemployment allowance is slashed to the bone to allow more money to be given to the banks to supposedly free up public lending. Celebrate. Our liberal selves. Hooray.

In 'Death of the Liberal Class', Chris Hedges supplies a great, snappy quote about this;

'The presidential election exposed the liberal class as a corpse. It fights for nothing. It stands for nothing. It is a useless appendage to the corporate state. It exists not to make possible incremental or piecemeal reform, as it originally did in a functional capitalist democracy; instead it has devolved into an instrument of personal vanity, burnishing the hollow morality of its adherents.'

I'm deepy sorry to hijack this thread, I had to get this off my chest somewhere. Take it as ramblings, if you want to.

Post of the century :thumbup:
 
Post of the century :thumbup:

A great post. One of the reasons I describe myself as a socialist and not a leftist is contained in this post. Many on the left have given up on pursuing the things that really matter and have instead pursued the easier, trendy goals of gay marriage, animal rights etc. The esablishment love this, because at a fundamental level their postions are not threatened by it. Many people I know, who describe themselves as 'leftist' would run a mile if a true reformist government took power. Orwell was right, look at the distractions placed in front of the masses to divert their attention from the vandalism that is occurring to the state right in front of their eyes.

The silence of right wingers towards business rorts is deafening, especially when one considers the noise they make about unions, immigrants and 'welfare scroungers.' Of course they are aspirational, they dream to one day take their place at the high table.
 
The idea of left vs right governments is fundementally flawed. For example, people consider Hitler to be 'far right', but in reality he was a socialist. That is where the word Nazi comes from, national socialism. If anything, Hitler was to the left of the current Labour party. The same can be said for the BNP.

When comparing governments, left/right isn't enough. You need to use cartisian graphs (2 axis) to denote it, with x-axis (left/right) being economical measure of socialism/free markets and y-axis (top/bottom) being a social measure of authoratarian/libertarian. Here's the UK parties in 2010 (link)

uk2010.php


Say what you want about Stalin, but at least he was consistent with his philosphy. He had total governmental control of social policy (as an authoritarian) and total governmental control of the economy (communism). Funnily enough these days the 'left' want to control the economy but not society, and the 'right' want to control society and not the economy. Contrasting views IMO.

I urge everyone to check out the political compass website and see where you really fall on the political map. With reference to the chart above, last time I took the test I was in line with UKIP/Conservative on the x-axis (left/right) and the Lib Dems on the y-axis (up/down). Sadly, there's no legit 'right wing' Libertarian party in the UK. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat though.

Take the test (Link)
 
=D> Brilliant post Gordi.

Most of what you wrote is valid here in the US too. The US Govt, in particular the Senators and Members of Congress, are so in bed with the large corporations due to their mind boggling amounts of lobbying $$$, that they are helpless to protect the consumer one iota against the malfeasance and unrelenting desire for larger profits that these companies thrive on. As a microcosmic indicator of this situation, the NYSE is currently trading at record highs while the rest of the country is still dealing with 7.7% unemployment and massive levels of debt, be it credit cards, under-water mortgages or student loans (the reason I probably won't marry my gf). The current system, if you follow it's logical path, takes us to Bladerunner-esque future dominated by a handful of super-large corporations who are able to control the population by supply-side economics and pick their "elected" representatives at will. Meanwhile, the political media continue to refer to these executives as "wealth-creators" and portray them as leaders and visionaries, when in reality they are simply opportunists who hide behind the corporate veil which precludes them from sharing any ethically humane trait other than making wealth for their own.

Below is a link to an excellent (albeit long) article from Time magazine about the cataclysmic abuses of the medical industry in the US, which received about a days worth of media scrutiny, including an interview on the Daily Show, before it was swept under the rug by the latest season of American Idol or Congess/the Senate's latest economic turn of brinkmanship. Ideally, this article should have been "groundbreaking" and "thought-provoking" because it basically tells the story of why the US has such a jaw-dropping level of national debt and why this debt is continuing to spiral out of control, threatening the very future of what the US loves to call "the greatest country on Earth". Instead, I had to hunt for this article online since I couldn't find a decent magazine outlet anywhere in a major metropolitan city that was carrying it...

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

Our politicians, whether they claim to be left or right-wing, are failing us. Period. The greatest threats to our system of a society are hardly merited worthy of discussion while they focus on petty trivialities and party squabbles. Are we past the point of no-return, or can society organise itself and force these men (and a few women) in their ivory castles to change the course we are currently heading down which benefits a few at the expense of the many? The Arabs managed to make significant changes recently in a number of countries and I, for one, hope that the populace across the western capitalist world manage to make a significant breakthrough within the next generation of a similar sort. The income gap is widening at an exponential rate. When will enough be enough?
 
Our politicians, whether they claim to be left or right-wing, are failing us. Period. The greatest threats to our system of a society are hardly merited worthy of discussion while they focus on petty trivialities and party squabbles. Are we past the point of no-return, or can society organise itself and force these men (and a few women) in their ivory castles to change the course we are currently heading down which benefits a few at the expense of the many? The Arabs managed to make significant changes recently in a number of countries and I, for one, hope that the populace across the western capitalist world manage to make a significant breakthrough within the next generation of a similar sort. The income gap is widening at an exponential rate. When will enough be enough?

This is why you should vote Libertarian. As the great Milton Freidman said

"I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office."

Trying to elect the right people is futile. Lobbying is so powerful because the government has power. Take away the governments power and you take away the power of lobbyists. As soon as you introduce things like regulations, the lobbyists will do everything they can to make sure the regulations suit them. The answer to this is LESS government, not more.

As for the income gap, that isn't worth talking about IMO. The question is whether people are poorer or richer, not whether the gap is bigger or smaller. For example, one could shorten the gap by taking £100 from every rich person and £10 from every poor person. The income gap is smaller but the poor are worse off, is that better? Conversely I could give every poor person £10 and every rich person £100, the gap is wider but the poor are better off. Is that a bad thing?

Real incomes of the bottom 20% have increased in the last 50 years, and income mobility is very much possible. 40% of those in the bottom 20% 20 years ago are no longer in the bottom 20% today.
 
The idea of left vs right governments is fundementally flawed. For example, people consider Hitler to be 'far right', but in reality he was a socialist. That is where the word Nazi comes from, national socialism. If anything, Hitler was to the left of the current Labour party. The same can be said for the BNP.

When comparing governments, left/right isn't enough. You need to use cartisian graphs (2 axis) to denote it, with x-axis (left/right) being economical measure of socialism/free markets and y-axis (top/bottom) being a social measure of authoratarian/libertarian. Here's the UK parties in 2010 (link)

uk2010.php


Say what you want about Stalin, but at least he was consistent with his philosphy. He had total governmental control of social policy (as an authoritarian) and total governmental control of the economy (communism). Funnily enough these days the 'left' want to control the economy but not society, and the 'right' want to control society and not the economy. Contrasting views IMO.

I urge everyone to check out the political compass website and see where you really fall on the political map. With reference to the chart above, last time I took the test I was in line with UKIP/Conservative on the x-axis (left/right) and the Lib Dems on the y-axis (up/down). Sadly, there's no legit 'right wing' Libertarian party in the UK. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat though.

Take the test (Link)

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. The NSDAP have some 'left' policies but this doesn't make them socialist, anymore than the BNP are because they might have a few left wing policies. Last time I checked, Hitler wasn't too keen on unions, workers' committees or handing the means of production to the workers. They were an industrio-fascist party. Hitler rather liked large industry.



This is why you should vote Libertarian. As the great Milton Freidman said

"I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office."

Trying to elect the right people is futile. Lobbying is so powerful because the government has power. Take away the governments power and you take away the power of lobbyists. As soon as you introduce things like regulations, the lobbyists will do everything they can to make sure the regulations suit them. The answer to this is LESS government, not more.

As for the income gap, that isn't worth talking about IMO. The question is whether people are poorer or richer, not whether the gap is bigger or smaller. For example, one could shorten the gap by taking £100 from every rich person and £10 from every poor person. The income gap is smaller but the poor are worse off, is that better? Conversely I could give every poor person £10 and every rich person £100, the gap is wider but the poor are better off. Is that a bad thing?

Real incomes of the bottom 20% have increased in the last 50 years, and income mobility is very much possible. 40% of those in the bottom 20% 20 years ago are no longer in the bottom 20% today.

Of course the income gap is worth talking about, especially with inflation. People aren't going to take it that the gap between them and the people above them is getting bigger and bigger to disgusting levels, when there is no difference between how hard they work and how hard these other people work, or indeed that great a difference between how much they contribute to the economy. This will hurt even more when these same people are a big cause of the recession that everyone feels, only they then put their money offshore, cry about how high their taxes are, all while these same people who've managed 10 quid more are having this money taken away through various ways.

And income gap has a definite impact on health outcomes, education, general health, pretty much everything. Its not just a case of being angry that someone is earning more.

As for libertarian policies, I have big sympathy for their social and foreign policies but their economic policies are a joke in my view. A return to the gold standard? Really Ron?

And fundamentally, do people stop to think about what the major differences between 'Western' democracies (the US, Europe, Australia etc) and bricky 3rd world democracies are? Could it be the poor taxation systems, huge wealth inequalities, poor government investment in healthcare, education, infrastructure and social cohesion, poor social safety nets, debilitating violence due to a lack of a strong, legitimate police force and generally brick, ineffectual central governments? Or are these people generally incapable?
 
This is why you should vote Libertarian. As the great Milton Freidman said

"I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office."

Trying to elect the right people is futile. Lobbying is so powerful because the government has power. Take away the governments power and you take away the power of lobbyists. As soon as you introduce things like regulations, the lobbyists will do everything they can to make sure the regulations suit them. The answer to this is LESS government, not more.

As for the income gap, that isn't worth talking about IMO. The question is whether people are poorer or richer, not whether the gap is bigger or smaller. For example, one could shorten the gap by taking £100 from every rich person and £10 from every poor person. The income gap is smaller but the poor are worse off, is that better? Conversely I could give every poor person £10 and every rich person £100, the gap is wider but the poor are better off. Is that a bad thing?

Real incomes of the bottom 20% have increased in the last 50 years, and income mobility is very much possible. 40% of those in the bottom 20% 20 years ago are no longer in the bottom 20% today.

Maybe I should have referenced "wealth inequality" instead of "income inequality"?

Don't have time currently to address your post but will try later.
 
Of course the income gap is worth talking about, especially with inflation. People aren't going to take it that the gap between them and the people above them is getting bigger and bigger to disgusting levels, when there is no difference between how hard they work and how hard these other people work, or indeed that great a difference between how much they contribute to the economy. This will hurt even more when these same people are a big cause of the recession that everyone feels, only they then put their money offshore, cry about how high their taxes are, all while these same people who've managed 10 quid more are having this money taken away through various ways.

And income gap has a definite impact on health outcomes, education, general health, pretty much everything. Its not just a case of being angry that someone is earning more.

I'll say it again. In real terms (i.e. adjusted for inflation) the poorest 20% have 25% HIGHER incomes today than they had in 1967. This video explains somewhat.

[video=youtube;UbueX92CKPk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbueX92CKPk[/video]

That is to say the rich may be taking home a bigger slice of the pie, but if the pie is bigger then it isn't a problem. I'd rather have 1% of £1,000,000 than 2% of £100,000. I will say I can't guarentee the makers of the video haven't cherry picked statistics, but it clearly refutes the idea that the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer. The parts on income mobility above are especially important. 40% of those in the top 20% had fallen to a lower bracket in the 10 years between 1996-2005.

As for libertarian policies, I have big sympathy for their social and foreign policies but their economic policies are a joke in my view. A return to the gold standard? Really Ron?

And fundamentally, do people stop to think about what the major differences between 'Western' democracies (the US, Europe, Australia etc) and bricky 3rd world democracies are? Could it be the poor taxation systems, huge wealth inequalities, poor government investment in healthcare, education, infrastructure and social cohesion, poor social safety nets, debilitating violence due to a lack of a strong, legitimate police force and generally brick, ineffectual central governments? Or are these people generally incapable?

The difference between '3rd world' countries and Western countries is economic freedom. Even when comparing only poor countries, the more free the country, the more prosperous they are and vice versa.

[video=youtube;6yqA6-ukmfg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yqA6-ukmfg[/video]
 
Sorry, I don't agree with this at all. The NSDAP have some 'left' policies but this doesn't make them socialist, anymore than the BNP are because they might have a few left wing policies. Last time I checked, Hitler wasn't too keen on unions, workers' committees or handing the means of production to the workers. They were an industrio-fascist party. Hitler rather liked large industry

This topic is subject to much debate of academics much better versed on the subject than myself so I'm not going to continue the debate past this post (although I will read your response if you choose to reply). The facts as I see it is that Hitler believed in strict government control of the economy through regulation, price controls and a large state. Hitler was most certainly not in favour of the free markets which define right wing economics.

From Wikipedia, the Economy of Nazi Germany, historian Timothy Mason describes post 1936 Nazi Germany:

- that after the 1936 economic crisis, German industrialists were increasingly excluded from the decision-making process[37]
- that after 1936, the German state came to play an increasing dominant role in the German economy both through state-owned companies and by placing increasing larger orders[37]
- that the expansion of armament-related production supported by a highly economically interventionist state led to those capitalist enterprises not related to armaments to go into decline[37]
- the decline in effectiveness in economic lobbying groups in the Third Reich[37]
- that though every major German industrialist called for a reduction of working class living standards from 1933 onwards, before 1942 the Nazi regime always ignored such calls, and sought instead to raise working class living standards[37]

Again, I'm not well versed enough on the topic to really debate the issue, but to call Nazi's right wing (where right wing is defined as the belief in free markets) is wholly inaccurate.

Furthermore re: the BNP, have a read here ( link ) as to why they aren't 'right wing' on economic policy. The whole point of the graphs is to demonstrate how right and left wing labels are completely inadequate for describing politics.
 
Last edited:
I'll say it again. In real terms (i.e. adjusted for inflation) the poorest 20% have 25% HIGHER incomes today than they had in 1967. This video explains somewhat.

That is to say the rich may be taking home a bigger slice of the pie, but if the pie is bigger then it isn't a problem. I'd rather have 1% of £1,000,000 than 2% of £100,000. I will say I can't guarentee the makers of the video haven't cherry picked statistics, but it clearly refutes the idea that the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer. The parts on income mobility above are especially important. 40% of those in the top 20% had fallen to a lower bracket in the 10 years between 1996-2005.



The difference between '3rd world' countries and Western countries is economic freedom. Even when comparing only poor countries, the more free the country, the more prosperous they are and vice versa.

Not many people in their right mind would say that incomes of the poor have gone down. However, what is beyond obvious is that a) the gap between rich and poor has grown wider, and at an accelerated pace in the UK, USA and Germany ever since the neo-liberals of the 80s came into power and that b) there is a genuine argument to be made that even as their income goes up, their actual wealth has gone down.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/richer-rich-and-poorer-poor/

economix-absoluteincomemobility-blog480-v2.jpg


economix-10wealthdistributionpew-blog480-v2.jpg



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054441/Rich-getting-richer-as-the-poor-suffer.html

http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer/

http://endoftheamericandream.com/ar...etting-richer-and-the-poor-are-getting-poorer

Social mobility as well, in the 'land of the free' is not as you would wish

economix-relativewealthmobility-blog480-v2.jpg


It is also a fallacy when the argument is stated like this. Of course you would rather have 1% of 1,000,000 than 2% of 100,000 but there should be absolutely no reason why you should not receive 2% of 1,000,000. It is not an either/or situation.

That isn't true at all though, seeing as, at best, there is no real statistical link between economic freedom and inequality of incomes, which has always been shown to be an important indicator of economic growth. Again, the major difference between the 3rd world democracies and Western democracies (not 3rd world dictatorships or the oil economies) is a strong but still democratic central government.

As for uncontrolled economic freedom, this isn't how the current powerhouses of the world economy grew (ie the West) and it isn't how the new powers grew either (China/India/South Korea). Have a look at Africa for an example of what happens when such countries 'open up' straight away under advice from the IMF to sell their comparative advantage, almost always primary products. India should be thanking their lucky stars that Nehru didn't fall for it, otherwise they'd still be selling tea and jute and relying on every minor shift in demand from the West for their tea and jute.

51vvqf.png



I have to continue with my project for the next few days but will try to answer the Nazi question if I have time.
 
I'll be interested to see why wealth would be going down while incomes have clearly gone up for the poorest. Is it a personal choice from a shift in investment/saving to consumption? I wonder

Social mobility as well, in the 'land of the free' is not as you would wish

economix-relativewealthmobility-blog480-v2.jpg

Now I understand the bleeding hearts might want to see a perfect 20/20/20/20/20 split amongst all 5 groups, but I don't see a huge amount to complain about in that graphic. Almost 60% of those born in to the poorest 20% of households will move up in their lives, with around 1 in 10 of the poorest 40% ending up in the top 20%. Not perfect, but that's actually pretty good in terms of income mobility.

It is also a fallacy when the argument is stated like this. Of course you would rather have 1% of 1,000,000 than 2% of 100,000 but there should be absolutely no reason why you should not receive 2% of 1,000,000. It is not an either/or situation.

While I'm not sure whether it is or not an either/or situation, the point is irrelevant to the discussion. Whenever anyone talks about the gap in incomes, it is always about how over time the gap has increased and this is a bad thing, as if people were better off when the gap was smaller. However when you look at the figures, the poor are better off than they were before. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the poor are clearly better off now than they were at a time when income inequality was smaller. Does income inequality matter so long as the poor are getting better off in real terms?

And remember, movement up and down the quintiles means that the 60% of the poor who have moved up the ladder are significantly richer than their parents, and those 8% who made it to the top quintile have a median income 100x that of their parents.

Thatcher was right when she said many would rather see the poor poorer so long as the rich were less rich.
 
Last edited:
The idea of left vs right governments is fundementally flawed. For example, people consider Hitler to be 'far right', but in reality he was a socialist. That is where the word Nazi comes from, national socialism. If anything, Hitler was to the left of the current Labour party. The same can be said for the BNP.

When comparing governments, left/right isn't enough. You need to use cartisian graphs (2 axis) to denote it, with x-axis (left/right) being economical measure of socialism/free markets and y-axis (top/bottom) being a social measure of authoratarian/libertarian. Here's the UK parties in 2010 (link)



uk2010.php


Say what you want about Stalin, but at least he was consistent with his philosphy. He had total governmental control of social policy (as an authoritarian) and total governmental control of the economy (communism). Funnily enough these days the 'left' want to control the economy but not society, and the 'right' want to control society and not the economy. Contrasting views IMO.

I urge everyone to check out the political compass website and see where you really fall on the political map. With reference to the chart above, last time I took the test I was in line with UKIP/Conservative on the x-axis (left/right) and the Lib Dems on the y-axis (up/down). Sadly, there's no legit 'right wing' Libertarian party in the UK. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat though.

Take the test (Link)

The Nazis were not socialists. They adopted the descriptor socialist in the party title to syphon support from the Social Democrats and communists. They sought to broaden their appeal to the working class, because the Nazis drew most of their support from the middle class. It was a simple trick. The Founder of the Australian Liberal Party chose this title for the same reason, as he thought it would broaden the appeal of said party. The Australian Liberal Party is conservative, just like the British Tories. Just because a party adopts a title it does not follow that they follow the ideology suggested by it.
 
The Nazis were not socialists. They adopted the descriptor socialist in the party title to syphon support from the Social Democrats and communists. They sought to broaden their appeal to the working class, because the Nazis drew most of their support from the middle class. It was a simple trick. The Founder of the Australian Liberal Party chose this title for the same reason, as he thought it would broaden the appeal of said party. The Australian Liberal Party is conservative, just like the British Tories. Just because a party adopts a title it does not follow that they follow the ideology suggested by it.

RE: the Austalian Liberal party, Liberal doesn't mean left wing. In this context, they are economically liberal, believing in free markets. That is what the above charts are trying to say.

Left/Right is merely a measure of economic control. Far right in this context means economically liberal with little interference from government. The Australian Liberal party are socially conservative, but economically liberal. That doesn't make them any less liberal than a party that is socially liberal.
 
Yes because socialism has not had a huge influence in Europe. Typical Tory caricature. Never knew this forum was for bigoted spurs fans.

What, like World War 2? Oh and also your doing great over there in France too by the way. "Lets impose a 75% tax rate on our most ambitious, and highest tax payers, and scare them all off to our neighbouring countries."
And, who do you think you are, Gordon Brown?
 
Last edited:
Back