INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

The future of Government (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2101 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 9:06 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:So you are posting for no reason.... :shrug:
Wrong.

What are the holes in it, Nick?
Er, no. I'm asking why did you post this? You failed to answer. Completely.

What is your reason?

If you support it, then why?

If you don't support it, then why?

If neither, then why post?

If it is "to stimulate discussion" why do you choke off any further discussion by posting meaningless emoticons...?

Oh dear, Alan. If you are not asserting anything by your post, then it can be dismissed without further comment. What, if anything are you suggesting?

As I said, anyone can cut and past.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2102 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 9:14 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:So you are posting for no reason.... :shrug:
Wrong.

What are the holes in it, Nick?
Er, no. I'm asking why did you post this? You failed to answer. Completely.

What is your reason?

If you support it, then why?

If you don't support it, then why?

If neither, then why post?

If it is "to stimulate discussion" why do you choke off any further discussion by posting meaningless emoticons...?

Oh dear, Alan. If you are not asserting anything by your post, then it can be dismissed without further comment. What, if anything are you suggesting?

As I said, anyone can cut and past.
Nick. You never asked me why I posted it.

Now, what are the holes in it, Nick? Maybe if you could answer that, we could actually have a discussion about it.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2103 Post by Nick » July 10th, 2015, 9:36 pm

Alan H wrote:Nick. You never asked me why I posted it.
Well, I'm asking you now.
Now, what are the holes in it, Nick? Maybe if you could answer that, we could actually have a discussion about it.
I wouldn't want to waste my time, if, as you should, you too, think it is full of holes. So why are you posting it? :)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2104 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 9:54 pm

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:Nick. You never asked me why I posted it.
Well, I'm asking you now.
For information, Nick, for information. And potential discussion with anyone who might like to discuss it.
Now, what are the holes in it, Nick? Maybe if you could answer that, we could actually have a discussion about it.
I wouldn't want to waste my time, if, as you should, you too, think it is full of holes.
But you don't want to waste your time and say what they are, this isn't going to be much of a discussion.
So why are you posting it? :)
See above.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2105 Post by Alan H » July 10th, 2015, 9:58 pm

Nick wrote:If it is "to stimulate discussion" why do you choke off any further discussion by posting meaningless emoticons...?
Eh? What are you on about, Nick? I never posted any emoticons for this; you did. And how would posting an emoticon 'choke off any further discussion' anyway? No, don't waste your time answering that - it'd just be another diversion.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2106 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2015, 12:11 am

Tax-cutting rhetoric masks increases in spending and revenue
When you heard George Osborne say six times in his Budget speech that he had moved Britain towards a “lower tax society”, he made a small but important mistake. He really meant “higher tax”.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2107 Post by Alan H » July 11th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Private Eye:
2015-07-11_12h37_16.png
2015-07-11_12h37_16.png (431.46 KiB) Viewed 1000 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2108 Post by thundril » July 11th, 2015, 1:26 pm

Nick wrote:
Finally, which bit of what I wrote looks to you like Malthusianism?
I think it is analogous, not directly Malthusian. What Malthus applied to population, to come to the conclusion that population would always be a crisis levels, you seemed to be applying to the poor, so that, whatever we do, the poverty would always be the same. (If that were true, then cuts in benefit would have no effect either.....)
This raises a curious point. Observe that, for 500 years at least, we in this country have operated a predominantly capitalist economy. From privateering (piracy) the slave trade, the construction of the first truly global empire, industrialisation, the development of sophistcated banking and financial institutions, we became (and we remain) one of the wealthiest nations on earth. And yet there are still millions of us who cannot obtain the most basic needs of life except by toiling 5 days a week at some dull task, or by 'begging' from the state for some means-tested and begrudged handouts.
Why do you suppose this is?

I do suspect that capitalism might be actually incapable of operating if nobody at all was threatened with homelessness and hunger. What do you think?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2109 Post by Nick » July 11th, 2015, 7:37 pm

thundril wrote:This raises a curious point. Observe that, for 500 years at least, we in this country have operated a predominantly capitalist economy.
Hmmm.... I don't think capitalism is a suitable description of the economy prior to about 1750 or so. Mercantilist, perhaps, would be better. And before that, feudal. That's not meant as a defence of capitalism, but because in so many ways the opportunity for capitalism didn't really apply. That doesn't alter the state of the great majority, for whom life was indeed nasty brutish and short, so your question still stands.
From privateering (piracy) the slave trade, the construction of the first truly global empire, industrialisation, the development of sophisticated banking and financial institutions, we became (and we remain) one of the wealthiest nations on earth. And yet there are still millions of us who cannot obtain the most basic needs of life except by toiling 5 days a week at some dull task, or by 'begging' from the state for some means-tested and begrudged handouts.

Why do you suppose this is?
For several reasons: first of all, what we consider to be "the most basic needs of life" has changed (for the better) by a huge amount. Clean water, a dry home, a comparatively nutritious diet, medical assistance, sewage treatment, even in old age, etc etc. Secondly, though many may consider their job dull, it is not going to be anywhere near as dull, dangerous, or back-breaking as a great deal of labour in the past, and the time spent doing it has reduced substantially, too. Thirdly, state benefits have never been as generous as they have been in recent times, not least the old age pension. And fourthly, because standards have improved, society takes the view that it is unacceptable for people to lead lives which, if you like, are detached from the system. You can't build a house without planning permission; it needs to conform to building regs; you must pay rates, your children must be educated, and so on and so forth.
I do suspect that capitalism might be actually incapable of operating if nobody at all was threatened with homelessness and hunger. What do you think?
Given the number of people who are, in fact, housed and fed by the state, funded by the capitalist system, and when one considers the vastly greater threat of homelessness and hunger which existed in the past, I think one might do better to turn your question on its head. Look at the alternatives to capitalism that we have seen in the last hundred years. Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy... the list goes on. In every one of these, where those in power professed to be on the side of the poor and oppressed, the poverty and oppression was worse than ever. And the ruling group maintained their position through threats far worse than homelessness or hunger.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2110 Post by thundril » July 12th, 2015, 1:34 am

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:This raises a curious point. Observe that, for 500 years at least, we in this country have operated a predominantly capitalist economy.
Hmmm.... I don't think capitalism is a suitable description of the economy prior to about 1750 or so. Mercantilist, perhaps, would be better. And before that, feudal. That's not meant as a defence of capitalism, but because in so many ways the opportunity for capitalism didn't really apply. That doesn't alter the state of the great majority, for whom life was indeed nasty brutish and short, so your question still stands.
Fair enough, let's say capitalism has been the dominant mode for 300 years.
From privateering (piracy) the slave trade, the construction of the first truly global empire, industrialisation, the development of sophisticated banking and financial institutions, we became (and we remain) one of the wealthiest nations on earth. And yet there are still millions of us who cannot obtain the most basic needs of life except by toiling 5 days a week at some dull task, or by 'begging' from the state for some means-tested and begrudged handouts.

Why do you suppose this is?
For several reasons: first of all, what we consider to be "the most basic needs of life" has changed (for the better) by a huge amount. Clean water, a dry home, a comparatively nutritious diet, medical assistance, sewage treatment, even in old age, etc etc. Secondly, though many may consider their job dull, it is not going to be anywhere near as dull, dangerous, or back-breaking as a great deal of labour in the past, and the time spent doing it has reduced substantially, too. Thirdly, state benefits have never been as generous as they have been in recent times, not least the old age pension. And fourthly, because standards have improved, society takes the view that it is unacceptable for people to lead lives which, if you like, are detached from the system. You can't build a house without planning permission; it needs to conform to building regs; you must pay rates, your children must be educated, and so on and so forth.
Well, I admit that even the poorest are considerably better off now than the poorest peasants living in the early eighteenth century. Given the technological developments, (not to mention the political and social struggles for improved conditions) it would be a condemnation indeed if we were not at least a little better off for 300 years of effort and sweat. But it is still a fact that somewhere to live and enough to eat are not guaranteed as a matter of course, after all this effort, and for all these technological improvements in productive capability. The tide doesn't seem to be lifting all boats equally well, does it?. .
I do suspect that capitalism might be actually incapable of operating if nobody at all was threatened with homelessness and hunger. What do you think?
Given the number of people who are, in fact, housed and fed by the state, funded by the capitalist system, and when one considers the vastly greater threat of homelessness and hunger which existed in the past, I think one might do better to turn your question on its head. Look at the alternatives to capitalism that we have seen in the last hundred years. Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy... the list goes on. In every one of these, where those in power professed to be on the side of the poor and oppressed, the poverty and oppression was worse than ever. And the ruling group maintained their position through threats far worse than homelessness or hunger.
Yes, there have been attempts at other systems, and they have largely turned out pretty bad. And we could have a long discussion about the reasons for these failures.But that was not my question. My question was, do you think capitalism could operate well even if nobody at all was threatened with homelessness or hunger?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2111 Post by Alan H » July 12th, 2015, 2:14 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2112 Post by Nick » July 12th, 2015, 5:30 pm

[quote="thundrilYes, there have been attempts at other systems, and they have largely turned out pretty bad. And we could have a long discussion about the reasons for these failures.But that was not my question. My question was, do you think capitalism could operate well even if nobody at all was threatened with homelessness or hunger?[/quote]I don't think any system could be effective if there were no consequences if the able-bodied were not obliged to work.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2113 Post by Altfish » July 12th, 2015, 10:42 pm

Then why are this government penalising the hard working but low paid people by stopping their tax credits???


Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2115 Post by Nick » July 12th, 2015, 10:49 pm

Altfish wrote:Then why are this government penalising the hard working but low paid people by stopping their tax credits???
I don't quite know which post you are referring to, but at £30 billion a year, from a standing start of less that a billion in 1997, isn't there the faintest suggestion that things are not quite turning out as one might have hoped....?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2116 Post by Alan H » July 12th, 2015, 11:13 pm

Nick wrote:
Altfish wrote:Then why are this government penalising the hard working but low paid people by stopping their tax credits???
I don't quite know which post you are referring to, but at £30 billion a year, from a standing start of less that a billion in 1997, isn't there the faintest suggestion that things are not quite turning out as one might have hoped....?
That's hardly an answer to the question Altfish asked is it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2117 Post by Nick » July 13th, 2015, 12:06 am

Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:
Altfish wrote:Then why are this government penalising the hard working but low paid people by stopping their tax credits???
I don't quite know which post you are referring to, but at £30 billion a year, from a standing start of less that a billion in 1997, isn't there the faintest suggestion that things are not quite turning out as one might have hoped....?
That's hardly an answer to the question Altfish asked is it?
Yes it is.

Of course, I could have just said "good grief" That seems to suffice around here...! :D

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2118 Post by Alan H » July 13th, 2015, 12:17 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Nick wrote:I don't quite know which post you are referring to, but at £30 billion a year, from a standing start of less that a billion in 1997, isn't there the faintest suggestion that things are not quite turning out as one might have hoped....?
That's hardly an answer to the question Altfish asked is it?
Yes it is.

Of course, I could have just said "good grief" That seems to suffice around here...! :D
Nick, the question was:
why are this government penalising the hard working but low paid people by stopping their tax credits?
The questions you seem to have answered are:
By how much have benefits increased since 1997 and what are your thoughts on what the expectations were?
Compare and contrast.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2119 Post by Altfish » July 13th, 2015, 6:34 am

hank you Alan, as usual Nick gives the politicians answer. i.e. answers his own question.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2120 Post by Nick » July 13th, 2015, 8:21 am

Well, Altfish, perhaps you could explain why your question began with "Then..." That seems to mean that it relates to some previous post, but, as I suggested, I don't see the progression.

Secondly, your question is a "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of question anyway. I suggested why the action had been taken. You didn't like the answer. That's the way things seem to go around here....

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: The future of Government (if any)

#2121 Post by lewist » July 13th, 2015, 9:02 am

What is the point? Where is the passion? Where is the ability to tell right from wrong, good from evil? The Dug has the right of it.

Read and be inspired. Labour can only survive by returning to its moral roots. Perhaps, in time, they can save us from the wickedness that is coming from Westminster.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

Post Reply