RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (11) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Scooter< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,22:14   

Well anyone with a shred of ability to see this adminstration for what it is knew this was coming.

I do like the fact he only commuted his sentence instead of a pardon. Which means exactly zero.

As I said at my blog

Quote
This is essentially a pardon. He serves no time and he'll never suffer the problems that anyone else with a conviction record like his would. All those Bush groupies will be falling over themselves to give him a job.

OH NO. He has to pay a $250,000 fine!

Right. They'll be plenty of under the table gifts to make that a whitewash. If anything this cements his place as a martyr for the idiot right wingnuts. I bet this increases his sellability in the private sector exponentially.

If this isn't proof that Bush is a joke, I don't know what is.

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,22:18   

It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:23   

Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18)
It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night.

What would Bush's resignation do, with Cheney in charge?  Impeachment needs to start with the Veep.

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 02 2007,23:36   

Well, I'm sure Olbermann knows that. But first we must determine from which branch of government Cheney must resign. ;) (The Judicial Branch, perhaps?)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:14   

When I read this my thoughts were:

"Dude! If I were American I'd be pissed"

Well actually, those weren't my thoughts precisely, I was translating them so our American friends could relate better to them. Just FYI, what I actually thought was:

"Golly gosh! Those colonial chappies have a bit of a rum administration. Mind you, we've just had a transfer of power that borders on the hereditary, but then being a monarchy we like that sort of thing. I wonder if it's possible for that Bush fellow to make the corruption and nepotism of his government any more obvious. Why not simply come out and actually ADMIT to being wrong over Irq etc? After all this action is basically a signal that this was the case. I wonder when he'll pay Her Majesty the 200 odd years of back taxes the upstart owes her."

And Obama apparently doesn't want him impeached!

I'd love to be able to comment from a position of smug superiority, but we have a government that has reduced scientific funding in real terms (i.e. per researcher. The amount of money has gone up, the amount of researchers has gone up more than the amount of money, the amount of bureacracy has gone up enormously, so the money per researcher is less), quite literally destroyed civil liberties so that we are less free now due to "terrorism hysteria" than we were during the second world war, ruined the health service with bureacracy, put more knee jerk legislation onto the statute books and more spin and lies into the media than the two previous administrations combined, taken the country to war on a demonstrably falsified mandate against international consensus, refused to change a 19th century inspired and obviously flawed foreign policy, and is determined to intervene in people's personal lives to an unprecedented degree.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:21   

Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:14)
When I read this my thoughts were:

"Dude! If I were American I'd be pissed"

Well actually, those weren't my thoughts precisely, I was translating them so our American friends could relate better to them. Just FYI, what I actually thought was:

"Golly gosh! Those colonial chappies have a bit of a rum administration. Mind you, we've just had a transfer of power that borders on the hereditary, but then being a monarchy we like that sort of thing. I wonder if it's possible for that Bush fellow to make the corruption and nepotism of his government any more obvious. Why not simply come out and actually ADMIT to being wrong over Irq etc? After all this action is basically a signal that this was the case. I wonder when he'll pay Her Majesty the 200 odd years of back taxes the upstart owes her."

And Obama apparently doesn't want him impeached!

I'd love to be able to comment from a position of smug superiority, but we have a government that has reduced scientific funding in real terms (i.e. per researcher. The amount of money has gone up, the amount of researchers has gone up more than the amount of money, the amount of bureacracy has gone up enormously, so the money per researcher is less), quite literally destroyed civil liberties so that we are less free now due to "terrorism hysteria" than we were during the second world war, ruined the health service with bureacracy, put more knee jerk legislation onto the statute books and more spin and lies into the media than the two previous administrations combined, taken the country to war on a demonstrably falsified mandate against international consensus, refused to change a 19th century inspired and obviously flawed foreign policy, and is determined to intervene in people's personal lives to an unprecedented degree.

Louis

Now now Louis, the NHS isn't a lost cause yet. It's sinking, sure enough, but it CAN be saved. Also, let us not forget it was the milk snatcher who started the rot, like so many things. (I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:29   

Oh I know the NHS isn't a lost cause yet, none of it is, well perhaps except the civil liberties. The trend is towards further restriction, a greater "Little Britain" mentality. I despair.

Oh and don't think it's party political btw (I'm not a party political person, I prefer to judge each action on it's meirts. Something called "the evidence", which is a weird concept in politics 'twould appear). Blair's govt has fucked up things I care about (scientific funding [see most recent Nature for example] and civil liberties).

I am no fan of Lady Thatcher, I AM however a fan of Dennis Thatcher, mainly for comedy reasons. Anyway, New Labour have been the best centre right, conservative government any Tory could have hoped for (apart from the fox hunting ban perhaps!). My uncle, who is a Tory stereotype of the most pernicious kind, loves Blair. Everything he could have wanted has come true! He might grumble a bit about taxes occasionally but he is vastly better off under this "Labour" govt than he was under the last "Tory" govts.

Vote Looney (or Liberal!) it's the only serious choice.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,06:44   

Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,06:29)
Oh I know the NHS isn't a lost cause yet, none of it is, well perhaps except the civil liberties. The trend is towards further restriction, a greater "Little Britain" mentality. I despair.

Oh and don't think it's party political btw (I'm not a party political person, I prefer to judge each action on it's meirts. Something called "the evidence", which is a weird concept in politics 'twould appear). Blair's govt has fucked up things I care about (scientific funding [see most recent Nature for example] and civil liberties).

I am no fan of Lady Thatcher, I AM however a fan of Dennis Thatcher, mainly for comedy reasons. Anyway, New Labour have been the best centre right, conservative government any Tory could have hoped for (apart from the fox hunting ban perhaps!). My uncle, who is a Tory stereotype of the most pernicious kind, loves Blair. Everything he could have wanted has come true! He might grumble a bit about taxes occasionally but he is vastly better off under this "Labour" govt than he was under the last "Tory" govts.

Vote Looney (or Liberal!) it's the only serious choice.

Louis

Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were.

So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem.

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,08:27   

Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18)
It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night.

Bush is just saying he and his administration is above the law.  How did that turn out for Nixon?

Okay, so I'm an optimist.

I love Olberman. (Only in a totally manly, way of course!)

So, will Bush get Worst Person In The World Award tonight, and Libbey The Worser Person Award?  And couldn't Cheney pick up The Worst Person In The World Award pretty much every night?  

Ian and Louis... Milkman?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:12   

Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,08:27)
Quote (Kristine @ July 02 2007,22:18)
It's conclusive proof that Bush is a traitor to the rule of law in this country, in my book. I understand that Keith Olbermann will call for the President's resignation tomorrow night.

Bush is just saying he and his administration is above the law.  How did that turn out for Nixon?

Okay, so I'm an optimist.

I love Olberman. (Only in a totally manly, way of course!)

So, will Bush get Worst Person In The World Award tonight, and Libbey The Worser Person Award?  And couldn't Cheney pick up The Worst Person In The World Award pretty much every night?  

Ian and Louis... Milkman?

I'm looking forward to Olbermann tonight. I didn't catch the Daily show last night but I think it and Colbert are on vacation which is a shame.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:17   

J-Dog,

Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:36   

Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,09:49   

Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36)
Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php

Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,10:02   

Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
J-Dog,

Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful.

Louis

In the same way that cancer is "less than wonderful".

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,10:39   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,09:49)
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36)
Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php

Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Thank you Carlsonjok - and my education continues!  (Please don't send me a bill for Constitutional Law 101 though!)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,10:53   

Well anyway, Rev. Barky has a humorous new moniker for Bushie. :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:05   

Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,10:39)
Thank you Carlsonjok - and my education continues!  (Please don't send me a bill for Constitutional Law 101 though!)

You are welcome. But, fear not. You can further your education for the low, low price of $2.80.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:07   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21)
(I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:24   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,09:49)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36)
Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php

Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

This is true.  Bush's application of justice here may be capricious, but it is constitutional.  

Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency.

What's bugging me, though, is the fact that the times he openly flouted the constitution, as with the electronic eavesdropping program and executive signing statements, he wasn't criticized as harshly as he seems to be now.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:46   

Quote (deejay @ July 03 2007,11:24)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,09:49)
   
Quote (J-Dog @ July 03 2007,09:36)
Per Ed Brayton at ScienceBlogs, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives him permission to do this.  Very interesting.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....riv.php

Ed is talking about executive privilege, which really has nothing to do with the power of the President to issue pardons and reprieves.  The latter power is codified in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

This is true.  Bush's application of justice here may be capricious, but it is constitutional.  

Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency.

What's bugging me, though, is the fact that the times he openly flouted the constitution, as with the electronic eavesdropping program and executive signing statements, he wasn't criticized as harshly as he seems to be now.

Well I disagree to some extent. At the time of the wiretaps and such it was the repubs in power but he was still criticized fairly harshly for it. It's just that those in power made it virtually impossible to do anything about it.

These are all just "symptoms" of the president's abuse of executive privilege, the disdain for both the separation of powers and the rule of law. Nixon would be so proud.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,11:48   

Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21)
(I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise.

What was wrong with Callaghan?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:10   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48)
Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21)
(I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise.

What was wrong with Callaghan?

Well, he was nothing special, but my point was that "best PM since before Thatcher" means "better than Thatcher or Major".  I've seen unicellular pond life that would have been better than Thatcher or Major.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:20   

Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,12:10)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48)
 
Quote (JohnW @ July 03 2007,11:07)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:21)
(I'm not excusing Blair, who has done little to help matters, although I think his is the best premiership we've had in...well since before milk snatcher at any rate)

Best PM since Callaghan?  Now that's what I call damning with faint praise.

What was wrong with Callaghan?

Well, he was nothing special, but my point was that "best PM since before Thatcher" means "better than Thatcher or Major".  I've seen unicellular pond life that would have been better than Thatcher or Major.

True. I liked Callaghan though.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:34   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,11:48)
What was wrong with Callaghan?

Harry Callahan: I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Roland Anderson



Posts: 51
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:40   

Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM)

I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow".

I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:47   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44)
Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were.

So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem.

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

Not me.
There is no British political party that comes close to representing my views over the spectrum of policies/areas.

BTW. What is the OP about? Sorry for my ignorance.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,12:57   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,12:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44)
Personally I'm old labour. Very old labour. Like, I'm roughly in line with Ken Livingston, old Labour. As in, I'd bring in higher taxes and tell people that, and funnel money into science, the arts, education and the NHS. I'd rob from the rich and give to the future, as it were.

So I vote the most  left leaning party there is (or will, when theres an election) Lib Dem.

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

Not me.
There is no British political party that comes close to representing my views over the spectrum of policies/areas.

BTW. What is the OP about? Sorry for my ignorance.

Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:04   

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,12:57)
Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

Please tell me I am wrong here.
The link looks as though somebody upset a politician and so a politically apointed (non-elected) person gave away details of a US CIA agent to upset her husband. Is that correct?
I hope I am wrong as that would be too bad.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:10   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,16:02)
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
J-Dog,

Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) was known as "Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher" because she had various education policies (not least of which was the cessation of free school milk for kids) that were less than wonderful.

Louis

In the same way that cancer is "less than wonderful".

Depends who gets it.

Louis

P.S. Also Thatcher bashing is very last season darling. There were some positives after all......just wait whilst I remember what they were....hmmmm...errmmm...oh yes! She won HER war (to paraphrase the cover of Private Eye from last week or perhaps the week before.) ;-)

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:21   

Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:23   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:04)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,12:57)
Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

Please tell me I am wrong here.
The link looks as though somebody upset a politician and so a politically apointed (non-elected) person gave away details of a US CIA agent to upset her husband. Is that correct?
I hope I am wrong as that would be too bad.

It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution.

It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no.

During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury.

Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail.


That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:26   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44)
...

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

That would probably depend upon where you live.
If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion.

I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21)
Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments

Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:55   

Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21)
Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments

Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific.

Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:04   

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:55)
Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21)
Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments

Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific.

Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close.

The Kansas City Star runs her fairly regularly.  I almost always try to work my way through Malkin, but it usually hurts.  It was much better when the column next to hers was Molly Ivins, may she rest in peace.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:08   

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:23)
...
It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution.

It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no.

During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury.

Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail.


That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free.

Not sure what to say.
So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:25   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08)
Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:23)
...
It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution.

It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no.

During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury.

Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail.


That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free.

Not sure what to say.
So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

Well it's really more about the man who was criticizing the Bush policies and the lies that bush told than about Libby. He just ended up being the fall guy for the whole deal due to his own perjury.

They used his wife (the CIA agent) as a tool to get back at him and to send a message to others who might be critical of the administration that they would stoop to any level to get back at people and to protect their power.

This is far from over.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:30   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08)
Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor.

The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:37   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,14:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08)
Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor.

The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal.

Damn.  For a talking horse head, you sure do make a lot of sense. And if you talked out of your other end you'd be the one granting the pardon, I mean commuting the sentence?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,15:21   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,14:30)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08)
Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor.

The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal.

I strongly suspect (but don't expect to ever see proof) that Libby knew this was the deal all along.  He takes the fall for his boss, his boss' boss makes sure he never sees any jail time, the slush fund takes care of the $250,000, Fourth-branch Dick continues to walk the earth a free man, everyone's happy.  I think this was all explained to him before Plame was ever outed.

It was wrong to let him off, but I can think of one or two others who should have been thrown into a deeper, darker hole for a lot longer.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,17:01   

Quote (deejay @ July 03 2007,11:24)
Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency.

Alas, he won't be criticized at all for his imperial presidency.  That's because the US people (and both political parties) don't HAVE any gripe with empire.

Their gripe is that Dubya is screwing it up with his incompetence.  If Dubya had run roughshod over Iraq in three weeks, like he planned on doing, he'd be celebrated as a hero right now.

Neither Democans nor Republicrats would reject the idea that the US has the inherent right to unilaterally run the world as it sees fit.  We are, after all, the, uh, "only remaining superpower".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,18:21   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:26)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44)
...

I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once:

"Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people".

and

"So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza."

That would probably depend upon where you live.
If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion.

I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography.

Oh, the falklands was a great victory.

Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,22:00   

Quote (Roland Anderson @ July 03 2007,12:40)
Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17)
Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM)

I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow".

I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain.

What's that Elvis Costello line:

"When England was the whore of the world / Margaret was her Madam"

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,07:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21)
Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard):

http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments

That would be the Vitamin A of Tard, wouldn't it?
As in high levels are toxic.

  
deejay



Posts: 113
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,07:56   

I extend my thanks to both our resident reverends for replies to my earlier comment.  I feel, well, is "blessed" the right word?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:20   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21)
...
Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces.

I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion?

Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion?

I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's.

 
Quote (carlsonjok_Posted on July 03 2007 @ 14:30)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Quote
(Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08)
Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?


I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor.

The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal.

Cheers for the correction. I probably shouldn't have commented in the first place as my knowledge on the subject is extremely sketchy.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:27   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21)
...
Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces.

I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion?

Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion?

I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's.

The forces were removed not long before the attacks.

How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open.

No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that.

Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:46   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27)
The forces were removed not long before the attacks.

How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open.

No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that.

Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace.

What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina?

BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her.

Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person.

I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc.

TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:59   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27)
The forces were removed not long before the attacks.

How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open.

No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that.

Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace.

What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina?

BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her.

Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person.

I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc.

TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail.

Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it?

I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like).

I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)?

Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:25   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59)
Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it?

I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like).

I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)?

Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE.

Well some good stuff.
In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child.

In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight.

Those things changed under Thatcher's government.

You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence.

Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so.

Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:33   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59)
Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it?

I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like).

I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)?

Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE.

Well some good stuff.
In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child.

In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight.

Those things changed under Thatcher's government.

You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence.

Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so.

Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate?

If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it.
If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string.

I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion).

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:34   

Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.  

What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.  

The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil.

Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule!

What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:43   

The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:47   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33)
If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it.
If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string.

I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion).

Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW.

As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW).

No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:54   

Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34)
Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.  

What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.  

The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil.

Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule!

What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint.

Some good points.
I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't.
I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO.

I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work.

Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:02   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33)
If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it.
If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string.

I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion).

Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW.

As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW).

No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments.

Ah, my bad, it was AFTER the start of the invasion. The defence was small to begin with (FAR too small) and they invaded without provocation, so we pulled out THEN.

Appologies for the mixup in the timeline.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:06   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:54)
Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34)
Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.  

What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.  

The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil.

Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule!

What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint.

Some good points.
I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't.
I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO.

I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work.

Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class.

I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did.

She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry.

Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:25   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06)
I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did.

She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry.

Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell?

I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister.

BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:46   

Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43)
The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  

Expert on British history, are ya, Skeptic?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:54   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,11:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06)
I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did.

She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry.

Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell?

I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister.

BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer.

We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,12:02   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 04 2007,17:46)
Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43)
The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  

Expert on British history, are ya, Skeptic?

Hell, I know I'm not!

Louis

P.S. Undoubtedly dear Lenny, it was the fact that we have inadvertantly been mean to Shurb and his minions. Since Skeptic hasn't bothered to inform us why atheists are really mean and damaging to society, I have no doubt he'll equally fail to point out how we wicked "liberals"* are bashing poor innocent conservatives. Shame really.

*Yeah I know, but guess what we're dealing with.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,12:05   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:54)
We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel.

I would like a point by point account.
I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong.

Tell me explicitily how Maggie Thatcher was worse for the working* class than the Labour governments (or indeed conservative ones) from the 1960s or 70s!

*I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,12:27   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,18:05)
*I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

Roll up, roll up, come and see the comedy inherent in the discussion.

Louis

P.S. {sings} "There may be touble aheeeeeead......"

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,13:37   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05)
*I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

You mean people who don't actually work for a living?

Like, say, the majority stockholders in Fortune 500 corporations -- most of whom inherited their wealth, and none of whom work for a single ducat they recieve in dividends?

Those parasites?


(giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,13:45   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05)
I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong.

Well, in the US, anyway, the 60's and early 70's were an economic boom time.  Real wages went continually up (and have gone down every year since).

It wasn't till the mid-70's that the economy tanked -- which led to the rise of the Reagan Republicans in the early 80's.  They pulled the economy back with a program of giving huge welfare payments to the wealthy, and of wastefully lavish Keynesian military spending.  

Kind of like, ya know, Dubya is trying to do today.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,14:11   

Here's the Olbermann special opinion:

You ceased to be the President of the United States

It's stunning!

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,16:07   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:54)
We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel.

I would like a point by point account.
I can remember life being much worse for working people in the 60s and 70s than in the late 80s. Maybe I am mad and remember things wrong.

Tell me explicitily how Maggie Thatcher was worse for the working* class than the Labour governments (or indeed conservative ones) from the 1960s or 70s!

*I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

Who said anything about the working class specifically?

Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made.

Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote:

"Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000"

An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION.

While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day.

Here's another choice quote:

"She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government."

Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,16:52   

Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43)
The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board?

Do tell skeptic. Enlighted us.

Or are you just going to do a drive by trolling?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,17:25   

I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus.

IMHO

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,17:30   

Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25)
I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus.

IMHO

Please tell us the "real" facts then.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,18:00   

I think that the religious extremists that basically control the US Executive branch and most of the Justice Branch may have already established their theocracy.  The burnings just haven't started in earnest.  There are more hired killers in Iraq than professional "soldiers."  The "soldiers" have set a record for murder and rape.  They are supposedly under some sort of legal and "moral" controls.

Honest folks, I think we are done.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,18:05   

Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25)
I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus.

IMHO

Does absolutely EVERYTHING on this board have to be about science? No, I don't believe it does.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:11   

Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25)
I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus.

IMHO

Says you.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:19   

This board is fundamentally about evolutionary science and the creationists who fear and reject it. Everything on this board does not have to be about science, but it's a good idea to keep the non-scientific content in the minority. Just make sure to toss in a science post or two for every one about habanero pot pies.

   
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,19:29   

Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,09:43)
The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board?

Because if we started flushing crap somebody might get flushed down with it. And you know we love to keep certain people around for laughs. :D So be grateful.

*Extends foot for kissing*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,21:35   

Quote (Kristine @ July 04 2007,19:29)
*Extends foot for kissing*

Muchas smooches from el Con-KISS-tador!

I know, I just jump in for fun when the fish are leaping into the pan, like afDave. But fer real, *skeptic*, you are a hoot. Where do you get your talking points, The Dittohead Daily? I know, I know, it's only perjury when a Democrat does it, blah blah blah, (yawn) (shrug) as Lenny would say. Really, do you have *any* thoughts not previously filtered by the editorial board of the Washington Times?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,22:15   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 04 2007,13:37)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,12:05)
*I actually mean working class here. Not parasites.

You mean people who don't actually work for a living?

Like, say, the majority stockholders in Fortune 500 corporations -- most of whom inherited their wealth, and none of whom work for a single ducat they recieve in dividends?

Those parasites?


(giggle)

Well yes, I suppose that they are.

Almost everything that is worth having is achieved through someones labour. Therefore if someone enjoys the fruits of civilisation but does nothing to contribute, then the description as a parasite seems acurate.

Then again, I imagine that the majority of us living in the 1st World could probably be described as parasites on the 3rd World.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,22:47   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07)
...
Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made.

Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote:

"Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000"

An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION.

While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day.

Here's another choice quote:

"She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government."

Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures.

What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty?

Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership.

Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve.

Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways.
1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper.
or
2)Ban imported goods.
or
3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2).

VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax.

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,01:02   

Well, I'll be danged. The Washington Times actually editorialized thusly (quoted at dailykos):

"Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction [of] justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not."

Tepid, yes, and full of the usual conservative culture of victimhood, but that's as close to a criticism of Bush that one will ever find in that paper. When the Washington Times tut-tuts a Bush action, you can pretty much tell that that particular action was beyond any definition of "proper," or "legal," or "Constitutional."

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,01:16   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07)
...
Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made.

Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote:

"Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000"

An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION.

While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day.

Here's another choice quote:

"She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government."

Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures.

What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty?

Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership.

Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve.

Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways.
1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper.
or
2)Ban imported goods.
or
3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2).

VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax.

Good grief.  Are you too young to remember the Thatcher years, Stephen, or has a warm rose-tinted glow already settled over the '80s?

"Mass unemployment was very worrying" - not to the Thatcherites it wasn't.  It was created.  Deliberately.  How better to increase profitability and help the rich get richer than to make several million people desperate for a job, or terrified of losing the ones they had?

Still, never mind, eh?  Quite a few of them still had "access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing", and the ones who didn't were probably "parasites".

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,02:26   

Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,01:16)
Good grief.  Are you too young to remember the Thatcher years, Stephen, or has a warm rose-tinted glow already settled over the '80s?

"Mass unemployment was very worrying" - not to the Thatcherites it wasn't.  It was created.  Deliberately.  How better to increase profitability and help the rich get richer than to make several million people desperate for a job, or terrified of losing the ones they had?

Still, never mind, eh?  Quite a few of them still had "access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing", and the ones who didn't were probably "parasites".

I am not too young to remember the 80's but a rose-tinted glow on my part is possible. After all, I did have a pretty good time during the 80's.

When you say "Thatcherite" who do you mean? You say that mass unemployment was deliberately created. There may be some truth in that but I don't think it is the whole story. We had an awfull lot of businesses that run unprofitably and in a changing global trading market they where almost certainly unsustainable.

Having "access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing" is a rare thing in the World as a whole. It is even relatively new in the industrialised UK. Something that has dramatically changed within my lifetime.

You (and many others) object to my using the word parasite. Let me explain what I mean. I consider anyone that chooses to not contribute towards society yet expects to live a 1st World lifestyle (paid for by others) as a parasite. I do not consider someone that wishes to contribute but is unable to do so in the same light. If someone recieves aid from others without contributing, why is that not parasitical?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,03:40   

Ok, how about this one- she used central gvt powers to make it impossible for Councils to oppose selling off council housing dead cheaply, whilst not making any provision to replace it.  Like all scams, this worked well for a while, until in the past few years councils have been unable to meet demand for affordable housing, leading to increased use of hotels, homelessness etc etc.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,03:51   

Quote (guthrie @ July 05 2007,03:40)
Ok, how about this one- she used central gvt powers to make it impossible for Councils to oppose selling off council housing dead cheaply, whilst not making any provision to replace it.  Like all scams, this worked well for a while, until in the past few years councils have been unable to meet demand for affordable housing, leading to increased use of hotels, homelessness etc etc.

I agree that was a bad policy.
A few people prospered at the expense of many.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,04:42   

Ladies and Gentlefolk,

I think that based on the two strands in this thread we can come to one conclusion:

Governments=bastards.

Therefore with that in mind I am starting the "Disaffected Individual Society Acting Solely To Effect Revolution". Our acronym might leave something to be desired but we shall tear down the governments and systems of this world and replace them with a cult of personality worshipping me a just and fair system of effecting law, order and the systems we must use to help the people acheive greatness.

It will all be different when we're in power. Oh yes, oh yes it will.

Louis

P.S. It has been said that in a democracy a society gets the government it deserves. In all the whinging about the wickedness of La Thatcher (and my whinging about the wickedness of Tony B Liar, and other people's whinging about the wickedness of the IQ 70 mouth breathing oxygen thief that sits on the throne of the United States of Ambulatory Beefburgers) we forget one thing. Interestingly, we forget one thing for two different and mutually opposed reasons.

That thing is that, as Caesar's slave reminded him, these governments are comprised of people. Not super humans, just ordinary flesh and blood humans like you and me (except Darth Robo of course). This means two things:

1) that these people who rule are prone to error (this we never seem to forget)  but also that these people do not act in isoolation. Blame Thatcher or Blair or Bush or whoever all you like, they did what they did with the complicity of a swathe of other people. So I don't hate the individual, I hate the apathy of people like me and you who don't go and change it. Protest and harranguing the govt works. It got women and black people the vote, it got rid of the poll tax etc etc etc. Get involved with people like Mark Thomas (in the UK) and organisations like Liberty and Amnesty and the ACLU in the USA. Fight for change. Don't just give your money, but your time. It really does work.

2) Whatever and whoever replaces them with also be comprised of people. People are both the strong and weak link in the chain. That's why it's our responsibility to keep them in check. The Libby thing is a disgrace. What's more of a disgrace is that the populace of the USA seems to look up from their burgers, moo about how outrageous it is for a while and go back to sleep. And don't think I would condemn we British any less. We're just looking up from a steak and ale pie. Any government will NEVER get everything right, it's not possible. But they can get things right enough. There is an alternative to party political, ideology driven, belief based politics of spin and placation, and that's politics based on the evidence. It's harder, slower moving and more difficult, and sadly that's why I see no party here or abroad do more than flirt with it occasionally. Oh well, rant over.

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,06:37   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:47)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,16:07)
...
Rioting in the streets was a nice game set up by Thatcher, lovely fires they made.

Here's a LOVELY statistic. I quote:

"Since Margaret Thatcher first came to power in 1979, the number of people living below the official poverty line in Britain increased from 6 million to 11.7 million by 1986. Employment in manufacturing industry has decreased by almost 2 million, while the number employed in the service sector has increased by 746,000"

An increase in over FIVE MILLION living below the poverty line. FIVE MILLION. Lets say it again FIVE MILLION.

While the rich got rich, the poor mostly got poorer. At least until Black Wednesday..... ridiculous boom and bust economics that sent our economy crashing, even the rich got poor that day.

Here's another choice quote:

"She had a preference for indirect taxation over taxes on income, and value added tax (VAT) was raised sharply to 15%, with a resultant actual short-term rise in inflation.[citation needed] These moves hit businesses -- especially the manufacturing sector -- and unemployment quickly passed two million, doubling the one million unemployed under the previous Labour government."

Privitisation, unemployement of (officially) 3.6 million or (estimated) 5 million. 5 million unemployment! This was a RISE from the previous labour figures.

What is the poverty line? Would you consider a person that has access to housing, heating, adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty?

Privitisation wasn't universally bad. At least 1 business going private was a good thing. The telecomms area was a major bonus to it's customers by going private. On the whole though I do agree with you on that point. Water, power and the railway should have stayed in public ownership.

Mass unemployment was very worrying. That was in the early years of her government though. Things did improve.

Manufacturing declined because we was uncompetitive. It was cheaper to buy imported goods rather than UK manufactured ones and so that is what most people did. It is sad that British manufacturing has dropped drastically but how would you have prevented that happening? I can only think of a few unaceptable ways.
1)Reduce British workers wages and working conditions to make UK products cheaper.
or
2)Ban imported goods.
or
3)Impose a huge tarrif onto imported goods that threatened UK ones (effectively the same as number 2).

VAT. Is that a tax that the UK has any authority on? I am not certain but thought VAT was a EU tax.

Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower.

No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away.

"Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time.

At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,06:38   

Query:  Did someone call for an assassin droid?  Is skeptic complaining about those damned "liberals" again?     :)

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,06:57   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,22:15)
Then again, I imagine that the majority of us living in the 1st World could probably be described as parasites on the 3rd World.

And they would be correct.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,07:38   

Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 04 2007,17:30)
Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,17:25)
I'm not sure what the point is but I do know that none of this has anything to do with evolutionary theory or science unless you're Lenny and you think that everything is connected via the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.  As to the lesson in English history, I have no opinion as I have no more than general knowledge.  But as far as Libby, the facts of this case have been completely lost in liberal hysteria which many here seem to happily mouth.  And anyone who thinks Keith Olbermann is enlightened is riding a two-seat short bus.

IMHO

Please tell us the "real" facts then.

Real facts skeptic. Chop chop!

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,07:55   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,06:37)
Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower.

No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away.

"Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time.

At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse.

I don't think that I lived in an ivory tower. You may think that but I don't. Both my parents went to work throughout most of my childhood. Apart from 1 year of unemployment I have worked since Sep 1978.

You have not explained what you consider to be poverty. Do you consider someone that lives in a house that is heated and can afford adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? I don't. Within my lifetime workers did not have the standard of living that some people on welfare in the UK enjoy now. Why do you think that a person living in the UK automatically deserves a standard of living that is higher than a citizen of Ethiopia? Don't get me wrong, I want a higher standard of living for everyone than that, but why would someone deserve it?

You think that mass unemployment was a deliberate choice by Thatchers government. I don't. I think it was mainly due to a changing World market. Sure, some of it could be down to specific conservative policies but I doubt that the explanation is as simple as just that.

VAT: I will concede as I don't know much about it.

During most of the 80's I was working abroad and came back to visit about 2-6 times per year. Each time I returned there seemed to be more cars on the road and more leisure facilities which makes me think that things got steadily better for most people.

  
snoeman



Posts: 109
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,08:11   

Louis:
 
Quote
Ladies and Gentlefolk,

I think that based on the two strands in this thread we can come to one conclusion:

Governments=bastards.

Therefore with that in mind I am starting the "Disaffected Individual Society Acting Solely To Effect Revolution". Our acronym might leave something to be desired but we shall tear down the governments and systems of this world and replace them with a cult of personality worshipping me a just and fair system of effecting law, order and the systems we must use to help the people acheive greatness.

It will all be different when we're in power. Oh yes, oh yes it will.

Louis


Heh.  As I read that, my thoughts drifted back to 1971 (even though I was only 3 at the time):  "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss..."  ;)

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,10:37   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,07:55)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,06:37)
Your rose tinted spectacles are worrying to me. My family were at their richest in the 80's (as far as I can tell) and THEY hated Thatcher, because they could see what she was doing to the people less well off. You must have been in one HELL of an ivory tower.

No, because that isn't what the poverty line represents. The poverty line is the minimum level of income one needs to be able to get an ADEQUATE standard of living. Anyone below the line DOES NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING. So what if it's worse than Ethiopia? This ISN'T Ethopia, and there should be a damn good standard of living, for 5 million more people from the previous decade, this reality slipped away.

"Mass unemployment was very worrying. " As has been mentioned, not to her government it wasn't. The rich were getting richer and we were in a boom. A BOOM I tells yer! But because it was unsustainable it collapsed. Mass unemployment became even WORSE during this time.

At the time it was a UK determined thing, because it was brought in after consulting the EU. The 80's was a great time if you started out rich. If you were poor, it got worse for you. A lot worse.

I don't think that I lived in an ivory tower. You may think that but I don't. Both my parents went to work throughout most of my childhood. Apart from 1 year of unemployment I have worked since Sep 1978.

You have not explained what you consider to be poverty. Do you consider someone that lives in a house that is heated and can afford adequate food and clothing to be living in poverty? I don't. Within my lifetime workers did not have the standard of living that some people on welfare in the UK enjoy now. Why do you think that a person living in the UK automatically deserves a standard of living that is higher than a citizen of Ethiopia? Don't get me wrong, I want a higher standard of living for everyone than that, but why would someone deserve it?

You think that mass unemployment was a deliberate choice by Thatchers government. I don't. I think it was mainly due to a changing World market. Sure, some of it could be down to specific conservative policies but I doubt that the explanation is as simple as just that.

VAT: I will concede as I don't know much about it.

During most of the 80's I was working abroad and came back to visit about 2-6 times per year. Each time I returned there seemed to be more cars on the road and more leisure facilities which makes me think that things got steadily better for most people.

Ok, firstly, the ivory tower thing was a little bit heated and seemed to imply I was having a go at you, I wasn't I was having a go near you, not the same thing.

Secondly, YES I consider someone in the UK without adequate living standards is in poverty, even if they have shelter and heat, why the hell don't you? Do you REALLY think there's no poverty in the UK? Don't you consider the inability to provide an adequate standard of living compared to the UK expected standard to be poverty? If not, why not?

Thirdly, I didn't mean they DESERVE it, just that, since the UK is a far richer country they SHOULD deserve an adequate standard of living, and should EXPECT one, as opposed to Ethipoia, who deserve one but probably don't have one, and are less likely to expect one.

I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

They got better for the rich, and worse for the poor. The fact you cannot accept this, and think that just because a large number of people suddenly had more cinemas and such like means the UK was A-OK is, to me, really, really REALLY disturbing. You only saw a small part of what was happening. If you are in a room where 100 people are having a party and 5 are being tortured you might be forgiven for thinking that pretty much is having a good time there and things are generally fine, but if you don't bother to look in the rest of the house and see the 400 being tortured before you claim "so I think the whole house is absolutely fine" then your opinions are tainted.

REALLY tainted.

I never saw any of this first hand, but my family did and they've told me the good and bad that they saw. I've studied this and seen a fair amount of good, but also a whole lot of bad. Believe me, if you really look without simply stating "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses" then you'll see that away from the affluence, there was a whole lot of trouble.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,11:40   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37)
I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,11:42   

Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37)
I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price.

That's true enough. I don't think the milk snatcher cared one jot about anyone but herself.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,14:25   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37)
Ok, firstly, the ivory tower thing was a little bit heated and seemed to imply I was having a go at you, I wasn't I was having a go near you, not the same thing.

Secondly, YES I consider someone in the UK without adequate living standards is in poverty, even if they have shelter and heat, why the hell don't you? Do you REALLY think there's no poverty in the UK? Don't you consider the inability to provide an adequate standard of living compared to the UK expected standard to be poverty? If not, why not?

Thirdly, I didn't mean they DESERVE it, just that, since the UK is a far richer country they SHOULD deserve an adequate standard of living, and should EXPECT one, as opposed to Ethipoia, who deserve one but probably don't have one, and are less likely to expect one.

I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

They got better for the rich, and worse for the poor. The fact you cannot accept this, and think that just because a large number of people suddenly had more cinemas and such like means the UK was A-OK is, to me, really, really REALLY disturbing. You only saw a small part of what was happening. If you are in a room where 100 people are having a party and 5 are being tortured you might be forgiven for thinking that pretty much is having a good time there and things are generally fine, but if you don't bother to look in the rest of the house and see the 400 being tortured before you claim "so I think the whole house is absolutely fine" then your opinions are tainted.

REALLY tainted.

I never saw any of this first hand, but my family did and they've told me the good and bad that they saw. I've studied this and seen a fair amount of good, but also a whole lot of bad. Believe me, if you really look without simply stating "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses" then you'll see that away from the affluence, there was a whole lot of trouble.

Ok, forget the ivory tower thing. I'm not bleeding, it doesn't matter.

Yes I do think tht there is poverty in the UK. I would also like something to be done about it. But there is a need to decide what poverty actually is. I suspect (but don't know) that you would agree with this.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml
I don't. I do not see any way that you could eliminate poverty if you use those criteria. Why would anyone consider a person that has housing, heating, clothing, reasonable amounts of food, access to clean water, education and health services to be living in poverty? Now I recognise that some people in the UK do not have that and accept that those people are living in poverty and that is an outrage. Hell, I would be willing to pay more tax if it was actually used effectively to assist our citizens that actually do live in poverty.

I am sure you don't think that 3rd World people deserve to live in poverty. I do think that our high standards of living are partly responsible for a fair amount of the 3rd Worlds problems though.

I would agree that they didn't say, "How many can we drive out today?" I also agree that some of their policies increased unemployment. What I don't think is that all the woes where entirely avoidable had we only had a more caring government.

Things did get better for the rich. No surprise there, that is the way things tend to go (how would you go about preventing that?). The torture analogy is a tad harsh and I can only state things as I saw them. In my lifetime living standards have greatly improved for almost everyone in the UK. Almost everyone, there are some exceptions but I do not believe the % is very high at all.

I do not subscribe to "Nope, what I saw suggested it was sunshine and roses". Why do you think that? Maybe my communication skills are so poor I am giving you that impression. What "affluence" are you reffering to BTW? I am not certain but get the impression that you consider me to be rich. I am not. It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,14:27   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,11:42)
That's true enough. I don't think the milk snatcher cared one jot about anyone but herself.

i should go back and reread the whole thread thoroughly, but i think it is fascinating that the UK had a virtually identical analog to reagan's 'ketchup is a vegetable' schtick of the 80's.

Sincerely,
Paul

PS  When, just for fun, I googled 'ketchup is a vegetable' I only got as far as 'ketchup is a...' and google finished the rest.  the first hit is here.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,16:22   

Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,10:37)
I don't think they got together and said "How many can we drive out today?" I think they just didn't CARE that they made so many unemployed. They felt what they did was the best for the country, and so they aimed for it. Thatchers use of the John Adams comment about people getting crushed in the wheels (paraphrasing, obviously) shows just how much they didn't care. If someone sees massive problems for a proposed action and DOES NOT CARE then they aim to do it, if only by collateral.

Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price.

Are working conditions/pay worse for most people ATM than in 1978?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,17:24   

Quote (JohnW @ July 05 2007,11:40)
Ian, I think it was more sinister than that.  It wasn't just that they didn't care; mass unemployment was the means by which they shifted money and power in the direction of their supporters.  If people have lost their job, or are frightened of losing thier job, it's much easier to accept lower wages and poorer working conditions.  I'm sure many of them were decent enough to have preferred another way of achieving their aims, but they thought it was a price worth paying.  Which is an easy decision to make when it's not you paying the price.

Ooooh, a fellow commie.   ;)


The term for this is "resevre army of the unemployed".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,17:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,14:25)
Things did get better for the rich. No surprise there, that is the way things tend to go (how would you go about preventing that?).

Shoot them.  


:)





I'm KIDDING, dammit.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,18:37   

" It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country."

This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well".

I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it".

Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone.

WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available.

Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good.

"Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist."

My particular favourite though:

"Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on."

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 05 2007,23:29   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,18:37)
" It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country."

This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well".

I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it".

Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone.

WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available.

Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good.

"Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist."

My particular favourite though:

"Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on."

My Bolding
That is what I have a problem with. Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.

Examples: If living costs stayed as they are at present and nobody earned less than £100,000 per anum but the average wage was £300,000 you wold be classing people (earning as much as £149,000) as living in poverty.
Yet if nobody earned more than £120/year and nobody less than £80 poverty would not exist.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,11:07   

Quote
Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.

Why?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,12:42   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 05 2007,23:29)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 05 2007,18:37)
" It is just that in my life I have seen the general living standards of ordinary people improve almost beyond measure, in this country."

This bit is where you are leaving me baffled. You seem to be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the poor people during the Thatcher era. Things did not get better, I even showed stats to show this, and yet you continue to say "well I saw things go well".

I think this may be fairly comparible to the attitudes of some creos who claim no evidence for evo based upon a few hoaxes. When shown other evidence they go back to "Well I don't see it".

Just because there are ameneties does not mean they are used by, or CAN be used by everyone.

WHY do you not see someone who does not have an adequate standard of living to be poverty? I don't understand why you think these people are suddenly sunshine and roses because they're better off than most of other places. YES the poverty in, for example, Ethiopia is worse than British or American or Canadian poverty, but that doesn't mean that the first world poverty is magically no longer poverty because there are a few really frighteningly basic services available.

Just because someone has a roof over their head doesn't mean they have a house worth living in, just because they CAN eat doesn't mean they have good food. Just because they have clothes doesn't mean they are really that good.

"Margaret Thatcher made two significant contributions to poverty in the UK. She massively increased it, leaving at the end of the Conservative tenure one in three children living in households with less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty). Then she said it did not exist."

My particular favourite though:

"Margaret Thatcher's politics created the social and economic problems which governments today must address. She may still live in the dreams of the nostalgic right, but the rest of the world has moved on."

My Bolding
That is what I have a problem with. Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.

Examples: If living costs stayed as they are at present and nobody earned less than £100,000 per anum but the average wage was £300,000 you wold be classing people (earning as much as £149,000) as living in poverty.
Yet if nobody earned more than £120/year and nobody less than £80 poverty would not exist.

EVen if this were true, and I'm struggling to understand why, I think it quite....illuminating, that you're totally ignoring all the stuff I'm putting forward about Milk Snatcher and just banging on about what poverty is.

Irrespective of whether you think the poverty line is poverty or not, did the figures rise, yes/no?

If yes, is this a good or bad thing?

Did the economy suffer under Thatcher, yes/no?

Did Thatcher crush the powers of unions, yes/no?

If yes is this a good or bad thing?

Did Thatcher completely destroy what was left of the british primary (eg mining, farming etc.) economy, yes/no?
(by destroy I mean remove it as a truely competative sector)

Did she destroy the British secondary economy, yes/no?


Tally up the results, if you have more yeses than nos what does this tell you?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,14:19   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,12:42)
Irrespective of whether you think the poverty line is poverty or not, did the figures rise, yes/no?

If yes, is this a good or bad thing?

Did the economy suffer under Thatcher, yes/no?

Did Thatcher crush the powers of unions, yes/no?

If yes is this a good or bad thing?

Did Thatcher completely destroy what was left of the british primary (eg mining, farming etc.) economy, yes/no?
(by destroy I mean remove it as a truely competative sector)

Did she destroy the British secondary economy, yes/no?


Tally up the results, if you have more yeses than nos what does this tell you?

I am fairly sure that you could find poverty figures that rose during Thatcher's premiership. Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is. Using the 50% average income scale could mean that every single person in the UK could have rising living standards while figures show poverty rising. I consider that absurd.

I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher. In 1976 (IIRC) Britain had to be bailed out by the IMF, I don't recal that happening under Thatcher.

Thatcher did crush union power (or at least seriously reduced it). Good or bad thing? Both. Union power needed to be reduced but I think she went too far.

Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. Good or bad thing? Not sure. It may have been less costly to continue to subsidise/protect the mining industry (for example) than to throw open the doors to international competition, at least in the short term. In the longer term it may well have been a good thing. Coming from Wigan I had many friends in the mining industry and it was certainly costly to them in the imediate aftermath of mine closures, however they are all financialy better off now and in far less stessfull jobs. This may be completely different in the Welsh valleys however where an entire town could depend upon coal mining.

So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people.

You can't just take the Thatcher years in isolation. Look at what proceeded it. In the 70s we had shortages in shops and power cuts depriving people of warmth and light and had to have the IMF bail out a completely messed up economy.

Your description as "milk snatcher" is also...iluminating. It is an obvious atempt to demonise. She did not "snatch" milk at all. She stopped taking money from tax-payers to subsidise it. Good or bad thing? Bad. I do not mind subsidising a childs diet. Just don't make it sound as though she stole the milk when that is not the case.

Why are you so resistant to put a pactical easy to measure description on poverty? I "bang on" about it because you keep stating that poverty increased where my experience differs from that claim.

In the 60s my nuclear family lived in my mothers parents house. 6 people living in a 3 bedroom small terrace in Bootle, Liverpool. In winter we had overcoats on the bed to keep us warm and awoke to a cold house until the coal fire was lit. The floor was covered in lino with the odd rug to keep the chill off and we had no motor transport. Food was shopped for daily as we had no refigerator and nothing was wasted as we would eat left-overs as something called scouse. Washing was done by hand and dried in front of the fire or in the yard.

In the 70s my nuclear family (4 of us) lived in a 3 bedroom house. We had storage heating and a gas fire. We had a car, refrigeration and a washing machine. My mother would go to every shop in town to save a penny on a product. We had shortages in the shops sometimes and had blackouts. Fod could be shopped for 2 or 3 times a week. We had carpetting throughout most of the house.

In the 80s we had no shortages of life depending products. Food was plentifull(ish) and the whole house had fited carpets. Washing and drying could be done by machine. Almost every adult had a car.

Yet you seem to be trying to tell me that I was sinking into poverty. Maybe I missunderstand. I hope so. Well not me specifically but I am an average UK citizen and so are most people that I know.

 
Quote (JohnW Posted on July 06 2007 @ 11:07)
   
Quote

Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.


Why?


Ask your question better and I will answer. Do you expect me to give an explanatory answer to the question "Why?" Be clearer. Your question could mean 2 things. If it was the first part I have already explained in the post that you queried.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,15:31   

"Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is."

Bollocks. It proves that the number of people who were poorer in real terms increased. THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD.

It is also not meaningless.

"I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher."

Then you're dreaming, frankly. I study this sort of thing, and the economy suffered a dramatic hit during the 80's, now let's think who was in power.....

"Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. " Then you're wrong. The industries weren't doing well, but Thatcher tried to squeeze all the money she could out of them, and when this made them unprofitable (due to, you know, there being millions less workers) she scrapped them.

"So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people."

Then you don't have a clue.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,15:44   

[quote=Stephen Elliott,July 06 2007,14:19]
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,12:42)
   
Quote (JohnW Posted on July 06 2007 @ 11:07)
     
Quote

Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.


Why?


Ask your question better and I will answer. Do you expect me to give an explanatory answer to the question "Why?" Be clearer. Your question could mean 2 things. If it was the first part I have already explained in the post that you queried.

1.  Given that I don't think there are an awful lot of economies with first-world living standards but average annual incomes of £300,000 or £120, why is classing poverty as earning less than half the average income "crazy"?
2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,17:20   

Quote
2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"?


Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions.

Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,17:56   

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,17:20)
Quote
2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"?


Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions.

Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that.

But Stephen is claiming that poverty is only impossible to erradicate if its based upon the definition accepted by the worlds governments.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:09   

I don't know anything about the larger discussion you're having. I just automatically think about some of my relatives when I hear people discussing poverty. The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'. Catastrophic health care coverage by the government may be the single biggest thing we can do to reduce the 'involuntary poor'.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:15   

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,18:09)
I don't know anything about the larger discussion you're having. I just automatically think about some of my relatives when I hear people discussing poverty. The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'. Catastrophic health care coverage by the government may be the single biggest thing we can do to reduce the 'involuntary poor'.

That's fair enough so.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:37   

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,17:20)
Quote
2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"?


Spend awhile around my extended family and you'll have an answer to that question. Some people love making really horrible decisions.

Not all poverty is the result of bad decision making. A lot of people go bankrupt from health problems and other things out of their control. But some of it is the result of bad decision making, and I don't know how you're going to eradicate that.

I agree with Steve.   There are always going to be people who just don't make the right choices.   We can - should - try to minimize that,  by doing the best we can to ensure that we're educating people about what the right kinds of choices to make are.

But you can't force a horse to drink.  

I don't know how useful income based definitions of poverty are.   For the purposes of social engineering through food, housing and education aid,  they're probably good enough.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,18:49   

Quote
...less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty).


On another note -- and please forgive me if I am wrong here -- I don't know math well at all.

But wouldn't using this definition make it mathematically impossible to eliminate poverty in any sizeable country that had citizens of varying income levels?

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:27   

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,18:09)
The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Sounds like a few actors, NBA stars, and NFL players, and they're not "poor" . . . .


;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:35   

Quote (PennyBright @ July 06 2007,18:49)
 
Quote
...less than half the average income (the official definition of poverty).


On another note -- and please forgive me if I am wrong here -- I don't know math well at all.

But wouldn't using this definition make it mathematically impossible to eliminate poverty in any sizeable country that had citizens of varying income levels?

Yep.

What needs to be done, of course, is to close the gap between rich and poor, and to redistribute wealth more equitably.

The wealthiest 0.5% of the US population has always owned between 35-45% of the total wealth.  That percentage hasn't changed much through Democan Administrations and Republicrat, through New Deal and Reaganomics, through War Against Poverty and War on Terrorism, through tax increases and tax decreases.  The wealthy are very good at protecting their wealth, no matter the circumstances.

Worldwide, the wealthiest 1% owns about 40% of the world's wealth.  Indeed, the 85,000 richest INDIVIDUALS in the world (who make up about 1% **of the wealthiest 1%** of the world population) own by themselves about 24% of the entire world's wealth.

In a world where about 25 million people die every year from starvation, that concentration of wealth is not only intolerable, it is criminal.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:39   

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,18:09)
You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'.

That would be me.

(grin)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:41   

Quote (stevestory @ July 06 2007,18:09)
I don't know anything about the larger discussion you're having. I just automatically think about some of my relatives when I hear people discussing poverty. The ones who like to drunk drive, punch cops, and have weekly unprotected sex with somebody from the bar are always going to be poor and there's nothing anyone can do about that.

You might want to call them the 'voluntary poor'. Catastrophic health care coverage by the government may be the single biggest thing we can do to reduce the 'involuntary poor'.

In what way?  Although laudable, I'm not sure that adequate health care cures their poverty problem.

Also, Lenny, I'd prefer to say that this country offers people the opportunity to become really rich and only 0.5% of the population are willing and/or fortunate enough to take advantage of that opportunity.

*ducks fast*

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:44   

The major cause of bankruptcy in the US is the debt caused by medical catastrophes.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:45   

Yes, but I don't think the major cause of poverty is bankruptcy.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,19:57   

Skeptic, I'm beginning to see how you got the reputation you have here. I'll let someone with more free time continue my end of the conversation.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,23:01   

I'll have two habenero pot pies to-go.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 06 2007,23:35   

Quote (JohnW @ July 06 2007,15:44)
[quote=Stephen Elliott,July 06 2007,14:19]
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,12:42)
     
Quote (JohnW Posted on July 06 2007 @ 11:07)
     
Quote

Clasing poverty as earning less than half the average income is crazy. By that criteria it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty.


Why?


Ask your question better and I will answer. Do you expect me to give an explanatory answer to the question "Why?" Be clearer. Your question could mean 2 things. If it was the first part I have already explained in the post that you queried.

1.  Given that I don't think there are an awful lot of economies with first-world living standards but average annual incomes of £300,000 or £120, why is classing poverty as earning less than half the average income "crazy"?
2.  Why would it be "damn near impossible to be rid of poverty"?

WRT.
1. I don't think that any economies have average incomes of £300,000 or £120 either. I was trying to make a point. If you use 50% of average income to indicate poverty then it is possible for every single person in a society to have increased wealth and still have statistics showing that "poverty" was rising. Conversely an entire society could be going into economic decline while statistics stated "poverty" was decreasing and that is why I find the 50% marker ridiculous.

2. The reason I think it would be damn near impossible to be rid of poverty is because of human behaviour. The restriction on freedom would be enormous. Lets say that you are now in power. You have taken all the assets of the rich and distributed them evenly. Everyone now has the same access to wealth. What will you do when the first gamble has  a person blow all his money on a bet with his mate. You now have 1 person in poverty and someone twice as wealthy as anyone else what, will you do to end poverty now? (a pretty silly scenario yes, just making a point),

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,00:03   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2007,23:35)
You have taken all the assets of the rich and distributed them evenly. Everyone now has the same access to wealth.

Why not just make the rich work for a living, like everyone else has to?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,00:09   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,15:31)
"Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is."

Bollocks. It proves that the number of people who were poorer in real terms increased. THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD.

It is also not meaningless.

"I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher."

Then you're dreaming, frankly. I study this sort of thing, and the economy suffered a dramatic hit during the 80's, now let's think who was in power.....

"Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. " Then you're wrong. The industries weren't doing well, but Thatcher tried to squeeze all the money she could out of them, and when this made them unprofitable (due to, you know, there being millions less workers) she scrapped them.

"So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people."

Then you don't have a clue.

Bollocks. It proves no such thing. It is just pressure group talk. It is meaningless to measure poverty as <50% of average income. By that measure you could demonstrate poverty increasing while those same people are experiencing life/economic improvements.
Quote

Then you're dreaming, frankly. I study this sort of thing, and the economy suffered a dramatic hit during the 80's, now let's think who was in power.....


Did it indeed? Which one? You was claiming Thatcher ruined the economy and I was arguing against that. That claim above is not the same thing is it?

So what economy that was going so well pre-Thatcher did she detroy. This one?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-by....0057288

Quote

Reviews

Synopsis
On 4 March 1976 the value of the British pound against the US dollar began to slide in international markets. The slide turned into a rout and triggered a traumatic economic and political crisis. By September confidence in the pound had collapsed; the Labour Government under Prime Minister James Callaghan was forced to turn for help to the International Monetary Fund, a familiar option for Third World countries but unusual for a developed Western economy. This study uncovers the most searing economic crisis of postwar Britain to reveal its historical roots and contemporary context. By the mid-1970's, the weakness and instability of the British economy, caused in part by the 1973 rise in oil prices, was a source of international concern. In April 1975 "The Wall Street Journal" advised investors to get out of sterling under the headline "Good-bye Great Britain". The US Government in particular feared economic crisis would drive Britain into a left-wing siege economy, endangering Nato and the EEC. Anticipating the threat, the US Treasury set out to force Britain to make major domestic policy changes. The sterling crisis provided the opportunity. The IMF provided the weapon. Arriving in London in November 1976, the IMF mission announced that the price for the loan included deep cuts in public expenditure. The consequent political crisis was fought out in private and in public, amongst members of the British Cabinet, the Labour party, the Treasury and the Bank of England. It involved the US President, Treasury and State Department, the Federal Reserve, the German Chancellor and the Bundesbank. Burk and Cairncross uncover the manoeuvres of the Labour Government to evade IMF conditions. The book also examines underlying economic factors, the political agenda, the rise of monetarist ideas and the Keynesian response. Juxtaposing narrative with analysis, it provides answers to critical questions and reveals how the breakdown of the post-war consensus on macroeconomic management paved the way for the triumph of Thatcherism.


From
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....o29.xml
Quote

Year Britain nearly gave away the bomb
By Ben Fenton and Peter Day
Last Updated: 1:28am GMT 30/12/2006



Blog: Freedom to conceal Information

James Callaghan was prepared to abandon Britain's nuclear bomb in return for a loan from the International Monetary Fund to rescue the country from its worst post-war economic crisis.

 
James Callaghan in 1976


The then prime minister and Denis Healey, the chancellor, were desperately trying to shore up British credibility abroad, especially in America, when they learned that one of Margaret Thatcher's team was in Washington trying to scupper their plans....




Now how the hell did anyone manage to break an economy like that?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,01:03   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2007,00:03)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 06 2007,23:35)
You have taken all the assets of the rich and distributed them evenly. Everyone now has the same access to wealth.

Why not just make the rich work for a living, like everyone else has to?

Nice idea. Something that I would not mind seing, untill I consider ways to bring it about.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,05:51   

Here's an idea. Instead of going off the masses of leasuire places you saw, and your own experience, why not find out what she did, and what the majority of people felt.

Try looking for testimony, and seeing if your viewpoint was narrow, or actually representative.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,06:38   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 07 2007,05:51)
Here's an idea. Instead of going off the masses of leasuire places you saw, and your own experience, why not find out what she did, and what the majority of people felt.

Try looking for testimony, and seeing if your viewpoint was narrow, or actually representative.

Well I went to here
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Thatcher+as+PM&meta=
and read links 1,2 and 4.

If my views are so far off track, could you explain how she won 3 consequtive general elections? If your claim that she deliberately set out to ruin a healthy economy is true that would make the British public (of the time) incredibly stupid.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,10:51   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,06:38)
If my views are so far off track, could you explain how she won 3 consequtive general elections?

Well, Bush won two.

Sort of.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,11:56   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,00:09)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 06 2007,15:31)
"Wether that is a good or bad thing is irelevant unless you can come to a concrete statement about what poverty is."

Bollocks. It proves that the number of people who were poorer in real terms increased. THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD.

It is also not meaningless.

"I don't think that the economy suffered because of Thatcher."

Then you're dreaming, frankly. I study this sort of thing, and the economy suffered a dramatic hit during the 80's, now let's think who was in power.....

"Did thatcher destroy any part of the economy? I am uncertain but tend to believe that she just stoped UK tax money bailing out failing uncompetitive industries. " Then you're wrong. The industries weren't doing well, but Thatcher tried to squeeze all the money she could out of them, and when this made them unprofitable (due to, you know, there being millions less workers) she scrapped them.

"So in conclusion, I believe that on the whole Britain improved in the 80s for most people."

Then you don't have a clue.

Bollocks. It proves no such thing. It is just pressure group talk. It is meaningless to measure poverty as <50% of average income. By that measure you could demonstrate poverty increasing while those same people are experiencing life/economic improvements.

Actualy I would like to modify that comment of mine. Upon reflection it is way too harsh.

It is not bollocks or meaningless to look at people on <50% of average income if you are going to look for the causes/solutions to poverty. It would be 1 of the best places to start looking (the very rich would be another).

But I do stick with my general claim that anyone on <50% is not necessarily in poverty, for all the reasons I have previously given.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,12:12   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2007,10:51)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,06:38)
If my views are so far off track, could you explain how she won 3 consequtive general elections?

Well, Bush won two.

Sort of.

Yes, sort of two. I don't see how that fact is anything to do with what I was actually replying to though. I doubt that Bush was deliberately trying to destroy the economy of the USA. You may think different.

Now your input on measuring poverty (how to do it) would be apreciated. I dislike the idea that poverty can be measured as <50% of average national income. At the risk/absolute certainty of repeating myself this would mean in a society that had it's lowest income citizens measuring 1/4 national average income they would be considered to be in poverty regardless of their lifestyle/conditions. Where a Nation with everyone starving, freezing or dying of thirst would have no poverty providing everyone was in the same boat.

Not likely situations I know, but hope you get my point.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,12:55   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,12:12)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2007,10:51)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,06:38)
If my views are so far off track, could you explain how she won 3 consequtive general elections?

Well, Bush won two.

Sort of.

Yes, sort of two. I don't see how that fact is anything to do with what I was actually replying to though.

Ah, but Bush and Thatcher do indeed have the same agenda -- they both want to save their economy with massive welfare programs for the rich, and massive Keynesian military spending.

Alas, the fact that both of them won elections (sort of) does indeed indicate that, well, people on both sides of the Atlantic are very very stupid.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,13:05   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,12:12)
Now your input on measuring poverty (how to do it) would be apreciated.

Well, in a world where just 85,000  ***INDIVIDUALS***  (roughly equal to the population of Bath, England, or of Duluth, Minnesota) own almost one-fourth of the **entire world's wealth**, I think the definition of "poor" should be rather obvious.  Or, at least the definition of "rich" should be . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,14:29   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2007,12:55)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,12:12)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2007,10:51)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,06:38)
If my views are so far off track, could you explain how she won 3 consequtive general elections?

Well, Bush won two.

Sort of.

Yes, sort of two. I don't see how that fact is anything to do with what I was actually replying to though.

Ah, but Bush and Thatcher do indeed have the same agenda -- they both want to save their economy with massive welfare programs for the rich, and massive Keynesian military spending.

Alas, the fact that both of them won elections (sort of) does indeed indicate that, well, people on both sides of the Atlantic are very very stupid.

When Thatcher got to be PM she had obligations to the IMF. The IMF had put restrictions upon how the British government could behave.

It (the IMF) had insisted that certain economic subsidies would have to halt. In 1976 many industries in the UK recieved subsistence. British Steel and British Leyland to name 2. In what way could Thatcher continue to subsidise those industries and keep faith with terms and conditions upon the 1976 loan (from the IMF)?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 07 2007,16:22   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,14:29)
When Thatcher got to be PM she had obligations to the IMF. The IMF had put restrictions upon how the British government could behave.

And which nations control the IMF and its policies, again . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,01:42   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 07 2007,16:22)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 07 2007,14:29)
When Thatcher got to be PM she had obligations to the IMF. The IMF had put restrictions upon how the British government could behave.

And which nations control the IMF and its policies, again . . . . . ?

Just tried looking into that but haven't found out too much yet. My first impression is that it was set up as an independent institution. However the policies/paractices it is was made to follow seem to have been decided by western industrialised countries.

Do you have any usefull links?

What I find disturbing is that Britain is a member yet the policies of the IMF are contradictory to official foreign policy.

Anyway in 1976 H. Johannes Witteveen of the Netherlands was in charge at the IMF. The USA and German governments also seem to have had a large say in the terms and conditions set for the granting of a loan to the UK.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,08:00   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 08 2007,01:42)
However the policies/paractices it is was made to follow seem to have been decided by western industrialised countries.

Indeed, it has always been utterly dominated by very specific "western industrialized countries".

That is not a coincidence.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,08:07   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 08 2007,01:42)
What I find disturbing is that Britain is a member yet the policies of the IMF are contradictory to official foreign policy.

The NAFTA agreement has a provision which specifically states that any national law which conflicts with "free trade" can be invalidated by the NAFTA authorities.

In other words, environmental, labor or any other law passed by popular vote in a sovereign nation, can be unilaterally overturned by a small group of unelected authorities meeting in secret.

And, of course, IMF has the specific right to impose whatever "economic policies" it wants upon any sovereign nation.

Money is, after all, far far more important to the "industrialized western nations", than any "national sovereignty" is.  


That is why there have been so many protests and demonstrations around the world against the World Bank.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,09:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 08 2007,08:07)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 08 2007,01:42)
What I find disturbing is that Britain is a member yet the policies of the IMF are contradictory to official foreign policy.

The NAFTA agreement has a provision which specifically states that any national law which conflicts with "free trade" can be invalidated by the NAFTA authorities.

In other words, environmental, labor or any other law passed by popular vote in a sovereign nation, can be unilaterally overturned by a small group of unelected authorities meeting in secret.

And, of course, IMF has the specific right to impose whatever "economic policies" it wants upon any sovereign nation.

Money is, after all, far far more important to the "industrialized western nations", than any "national sovereignty" is.  


That is why there have been so many protests and demonstrations around the world against the World Bank.

That reminds of a story in the docu-film "the corporation".
I can't recal all the details right now (I will need to watch it again), but a small country asked for a loan (can't remember which particular organisation) to repair some infrastructure. Part of the deal was that it had to be done by the private sector. The result was a charge for clean water that was very high and even a ban on citizens collecting rainwater. It lead to a revolution IIRC.

I think This was the story.
Quote
 
Bechtel versus Bolivia



    The World Bank denied a $25 million loan guarantee to Cochabamba, Bolivia unless the local government sold its water system to the private sector. Two years prior to the water deal, World Bank officials threatened to withhold $600 million in international debt relief if Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, did not privatize Cochabamba's public water system.

    Immediately after Bechtel bought the municipal water supply in Cochabamba, the American firm raised prices two hundred percent and cut off water access to the poor. When the company refused to lower its rates, there followed a general strike, a transportation stand-still, and demonstrations resulting in mass arrests, hundred of injuries, and at least one death. After only four months, Bechtel fled to the United States and filed a twenty-five million dollar suit against Bolivia that is to be tried behind closed doors in a secret trade court at World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C.


Found it here:
http://www.hermes-press.com/water.htm

Pretty frightening stuff.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 08 2007,20:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 08 2007,09:13)
    Immediately after Bechtel bought the municipal water supply in Cochabamba, the American firm raised prices two hundred percent and cut off water access to the poor.

Those guys are all heart, aren't they . . . . .


HINT:  Any time you hear any corporado or politico declare that they have the best interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart, they're bullshitting.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2007,02:09   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 08 2007,20:26)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 08 2007,09:13)
    Immediately after Bechtel bought the municipal water supply in Cochabamba, the American firm raised prices two hundred percent and cut off water access to the poor.

Those guys are all heart, aren't they . . . . .


HINT:  Any time you hear any corporado or politico declare that they have the best interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart, they're bullshitting.

Assuming that the term "corporado" refers to someone such as a board member of a corporation then I believe that you are correct. From what I understand the board of a corporation has to put the profits of shareholders as it's number 1 priority by law. So if corporations are to be made "nicer" I guess laws are needed to make it unprofitable to behave otherwise.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2007,11:22   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 09 2007,02:09)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 08 2007,20:26)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 08 2007,09:13)
    Immediately after Bechtel bought the municipal water supply in Cochabamba, the American firm raised prices two hundred percent and cut off water access to the poor.

Those guys are all heart, aren't they . . . . .


HINT:  Any time you hear any corporado or politico declare that they have the best interests of the poor and downtrodden at heart, they're bullshitting.

Assuming that the term "corporado" refers to someone such as a board member of a corporation then I believe that you are correct. From what I understand the board of a corporation has to put the profits of shareholders as it's number 1 priority by law. So if corporations are to be made "nicer" I guess laws are needed to make it unprofitable to behave otherwise.

My emphasis.

Despite our disagreements about La Thatch, I think we're on the same page quite a lot of the time, Stephen.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2007,17:12   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 09 2007,02:09)
From what I understand the board of a corporation has to put the profits of shareholders as it's number 1 priority by law.

Odd, isn't it.  If one were to lock a group of people into a room and deny them water for a week, one would be arrested and tossed in jail.  If, on the other hand, one were to deny an entire town water indefinitely, one would not only benefit financially from it, but would be mandated BY LAW to do so.

It's the same sort of "logic" that pays farmers to not grow food ("price supports") even though thousands of people starve to death every day.

Some people spend time arguing whether it's legal requirements that produce economic interests, or economic interests that produce legal requirements.  Me, I think it's both.  And both protect the very same people.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that capitalism is just a gigantic pyramid scam.  The tiny number of people at the top make their living by allowing the huge number of people at the bottom to do all the leg work, and then siphoning all the money up to themselves -- meanwhile keeping the lower levels in their place by dangling in front of them the hope that one day, if they work hard and do what they're told, maybe THEY can become one of the fortunate few at the top, doing to others what is now being done to them.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2007,09:34   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 09 2007,17:12)
The more I think about it, the more I believe that capitalism is just a gigantic pyramid scam.  The tiny number of people at the top make their living by allowing the huge number of people at the bottom to do all the leg work, and then siphoning all the money up to themselves -- meanwhile keeping the lower levels in their place by dangling in front of them the hope that one day, if they work hard and do what they're told, maybe THEY can become one of the fortunate few at the top, doing to others what is now being done to them.

I think there is a lot of truth in that, but it doesn't have to be that way. If every company operating in a country (maybe it would have to be the entire world now) paid better wages then there would be more demand for products and it is possible that everyone would gain.

Despite all the problems with the system we have now I don't know of an alternative that has been tried and worked better.

I am convinced that living conditions have improved for almost every single person living in the UK over the last 2 centuries. However I think that may have been achieved by "exporting the suffering". I am not yet certain that is the case, I need to learn more.
 
Quote (JohnW Posted on July 09 2007 @ 11:22)


Despite our disagreements about La Thatch, I think we're on the same page quite a lot of the time, Stephen.


We might not even dissagree about Thatcher as much as you think we do.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2007,18:52   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 11 2007,09:34)
If every company operating in a country (maybe it would have to be the entire world now) paid better wages then there would be more demand for products and it is possible that everyone would gain.

Ah, but that is indeed the fatal contradiction in capitalism. . . .

On the one hand, they need to pay people lots, so that people can buy all the junk they produce.  On the other hand, they need to pay people little, so they can make more profits.  And they can't do both at the same time.

What every business owner really wants is for every OTHER business owner to pay his workers really really well.  

Illustrated by a story (perhaps apocryphal):  Henry Ford and Union leader Walter Reuther were touring a new Ford plant that was run completely by robots.  As they walked along the row of clattering machines, Ford turned to Reuther and said "Well, Walter, how are you going to get these robots to go out on strike?"  Reuther replied, "Well, Henry, how are YOU going to get them to buy Fords?"

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2007,18:54   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 11 2007,09:34)
I am convinced that living conditions have improved for almost every single person living in the UK over the last 2 centuries. However I think that may have been achieved by "exporting the suffering". I am not yet certain that is the case, I need to learn more.

You will find that you are quite correct.

You will also find that this is the primary reason why the rest of the world hates us.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 11 2007,22:14   

projecting much, Lenny?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,00:56   

Quote (skeptic @ July 11 2007,22:14)
projecting much, Lenny?

So I see Skeptic doesn't know what the word "projecting" means.

What a surprise.

(yawn)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,02:33   

Skeptic,

Rather than becoming the new Bobby "Dull as DooDoo" O'Brien how about you actually make an argument rather than wanking on about how any criticism of the USA (no matter how valid) equates to hatred of the USA and thus can be dismissed.

Got anywhere on your arguments proving atheists are bad for society yet? Or are you running away?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,06:41   

For one, it's a stupid statement to say that "the rest of the world hates us."  The burden of proof for that over-generalization lies with the fool who mouths it.

As far as our atheist discussion, I'd refer you to some interesting reading material.  The latest issue of The Skeptic has a really good review of Dawkins and the current thoughts of radical atheism, but that's a conversation for a different thread.

  
Rev. BigDumbChimp



Posts: 185
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,06:46   

Skeptic, I'm still waiting on the "Real" facts on the Libby case.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,07:09   

Quote (skeptic @ July 12 2007,06:41)
For one, it's a stupid statement to say that "the rest of the world hates us."  

Perhaps you've not read a newspaper in years . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,13:30   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 11 2007,18:52)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 11 2007,09:34)
If every company operating in a country (maybe it would have to be the entire world now) paid better wages then there would be more demand for products and it is possible that everyone would gain.

Ah, but that is indeed the fatal contradiction in capitalism. . . .

On the one hand, they need to pay people lots, so that people can buy all the junk they produce.  On the other hand, they need to pay people little, so they can make more profits.  And they can't do both at the same time.

What every business owner really wants is for every OTHER business owner to pay his workers really really well.  

Illustrated by a story (perhaps apocryphal):  Henry Ford and Union leader Walter Reuther were touring a new Ford plant that was run completely by robots.  As they walked along the row of clattering machines, Ford turned to Reuther and said "Well, Walter, how are you going to get these robots to go out on strike?"  Reuther replied, "Well, Henry, how are YOU going to get them to buy Fords?"

Pretty sure the Ford story is apocryphal (from what little I have heard he was a far better employer than most) but it makes a good point.

I suspect that you would want to replace capitalism with communism. If so, how do you think it could be made to actually work?

Pesonally I suspect that it would be easier to alter laws to make more people gain under capitalism than to get communism to improve peoples lot. But I am open to persuasion.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,13:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 09 2007,17:12)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 09 2007,02:09)
From what I understand the board of a corporation has to put the profits of shareholders as it's number 1 priority by law.

Odd, isn't it.  If one were to lock a group of people into a room and deny them water for a week, one would be arrested and tossed in jail.  If, on the other hand, one were to deny an entire town water indefinitely, one would not only benefit financially from it, but would be mandated BY LAW to do so.

It's the same sort of "logic" that pays farmers to not grow food ("price supports") even though thousands of people starve to death every day.

Some people spend time arguing whether it's legal requirements that produce economic interests, or economic interests that produce legal requirements.  Me, I think it's both.  And both protect the very same people.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that capitalism is just a gigantic pyramid scam.  The tiny number of people at the top make their living by allowing the huge number of people at the bottom to do all the leg work, and then siphoning all the money up to themselves -- meanwhile keeping the lower levels in their place by dangling in front of them the hope that one day, if they work hard and do what they're told, maybe THEY can become one of the fortunate few at the top, doing to others what is now being done to them.

Have you read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? If not, I expect that you would like it.

Paying farmers to not grow food sounds absurd (yes, I know it happens, the EU do it too). But there is a [i]possibility[i] that it might make sense sometimes. Perhaps to prevent overuse of agricultural land. Though I am pretty sure it is to inflate prices most of the time.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,17:12   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 12 2007,13:30)
I suspect that you would want to replace capitalism with communism. If so, how do you think it could be made to actually work?

Democracy.
It cures nearly everything.

The corporados are already building "communism" or "socialism" or whatever the heck else one wants to call it.  They have already destroyed the economic power of the small proprietorship, they have already turned privately-owned capital into collectively owned capital, they have already replaced owner-managers with elected managers,  they have melded economic and political structures, they have introduced short- and long-term economic planning, they have introduced social distribution, and they have made national borders utterly irrelevant.  They have even made (very tentative) steps towards horizontal integration and workplace democracy.

Of course, they are very very careful that all these process still keep power (and benefits) in *their* hands instead of anyone else's.

But, since we outnumber them by, oh, a million to one, all we need to do is wait for them to finish the process, then kick them all out and run it for ourselves.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2007,17:35   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 12 2007,13:36)
Paying farmers to not grow food sounds absurd (yes, I know it happens, the EU do it too). But there is a [i]possibility[i] that it might make sense sometimes. Perhaps to prevent overuse of agricultural land. Though I am pretty sure it is to inflate prices most of the time.

Why do you think they call it "price supports"?
(grin)

The corporados like to paint "price supports" as a well-meaning humanitarian way to help poor struggling family farmers who can't get enough money for their free-range milk, or something.  

Horse shit.  The family farm has been dead for fifty years now.  The vast majority of farmland in the US is owned and controlled by gargantuan corporate agri-businesses who run "factory farms", like Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra.  Surprisingly enough, this tiny handful of corporate factory "farmers" also get the vast majority of money from the "price supports" program.

It's just another form of welfare for the rich.

They don't give two hoots in hell about "overuse of agricultural land".   They'll just drench it in more toxic chemical fertilizers to keep it producing.  And when it runs off into the groundwater, they'll bitch and moan about having to pay to clean it up.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,13:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 12 2007,17:12)
But, since we outnumber them by, oh, a million to one, all we need to do is wait for them to finish the process, then kick them all out and run it for ourselves.

Well you haven't said anything in either post that I drastically disagree with (but I had to google horizontal integration).

Only the part I have quoted do I have serious doubts about. By the time it gets to that state the incredibly rich are very likely to be almost completely isolated from the rest of society (as far as that is possible). I also imagine that they would be able to manipulate enough resources that we will never be in a position to just take the means of production from them (not easily anyway). Plus it is far easier for a very small elite to organise and divide opposition than it is for the masses to unite.

Time will tell. I hope it never comes to that because everyone (well nearly) will suffer.

OTOH: It need not be doom and gloom. Corporations are very good at making wealth. If laws could be implemented to make it unprofitable to cause suffering, we may all benefit. eg. The water companies. Right now they make most (short term) profit by providing a bad service. If laws got made to make that unprofitable I bet they could provide a better service and still make a (admitedly smaller) profit.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 13 2007,17:19   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 13 2007,13:13)
I also imagine that they would be able to manipulate enough resources that we will never be in a position to just take the means of production from them (not easily anyway).

Well, I comfort myself with the fact that they're not bullet-proof.  No matter how rich and powerful and manipulative they get, if you shoot them, they die just like everyone else.  

(shrug)


I, too, hope it doesn't come to that.

But given history, I think it will.  No power elite ever gives up power without a fight.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,12:04   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 13 2007,17:19)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 13 2007,13:13)
I also imagine that they would be able to manipulate enough resources that we will never be in a position to just take the means of production from them (not easily anyway).

Well, I comfort myself with the fact that they're not bullet-proof.  No matter how rich and powerful and manipulative they get, if you shoot them, they die just like everyone else.  
(shrug)
I, too, hope it doesn't come to that.
But given history, I think it will.  No power elite ever gives up power without a fight.

I doubt that would be as simple as you make out. To shoot someone you have to be within effective range. It wont be the megga rich that you would encounter first but trained security forces. No pushover. Particularly with the trend we seing develop where the rich are retreating into gated communities.

Then after all that blood-letting (assuming the poor win), the most viscious/ruthless are likely to be in positions of power. Meet the new boss.

Would it not be more effective/less costly for the workers to occupy the means of production?

Anyway. Personally, I would rather it was settled through legal proceedings. Not many bloody revolutions actually made life better for the people on the bottom rung IIRC.

Also I want life to be better for the poor not fairer. Everyone starving is fairer than most eating well and a few eating excelently (just an analogy BTW).

EDIT: Maybe this thread should have a title change now. Possibly to "random politics".

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,13:07   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 14 2007,12:04)
Would it not be more effective/less costly for the workers to occupy the means of production?

Indeed.  I've always been very a big fan of the General Strike.  Alas, though, that will also bring on the General Strike-Breakers.  And they will be armed.

As noted, no power elite has ever given up without a fight.  Even the Brits didn't leave North America because we colonials asked them to nicely.  They left because we stuck muskets in their face and said "Get out".

No offense to my Brit friends.   :)

The best outcome would be for the armed forces themselves  to abandon their bosses and refuse to repress the rebels.  As happened when the Leninists collapsed.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,13:19   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 14 2007,12:04)
Also I want life to be better for the poor not fairer. Everyone starving is fairer than most eating well and a few eating excelently (just an analogy BTW).

There's no reason we can't have both "fair" and "better".  There is already enough per capita income, worldwide, to provide a decent living for everyone.  The problem has never been that we can't *produce* enough for everyone; the problem is that capitalism doesn't produce things so people can have them -- it produces things so that capitalists can SELL them.  Capitalism isn't in business to provide bread to starving people -- it's in business to SELL bread to people who have *money*.  No money, no bread.  Feeding starving people isn't anywhere on capitalism's list of things to do.  There's no profit in it.  (It's one reason why I've always said that, if the purpose of an economic system is to provide people with the things they need, then capitalism has been an utter abject failure.  Of course, capitalism is very very good at transferring wealth from many hands to a few -- which is of course just what it is designed to do.)

If wealth were to be distributed according to need rather than according to income, the vast majority of people's standard of living would go up.  

A tiny minority's standard of living would, of course, go down.  WAY down. My sympathy level for them is pretty close to zero.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,13:27   

Mike Argento of the York Daily Record, has an excellent article on the Libbby wash.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,14:09   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 14 2007,13:19)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 14 2007,12:04)
Also I want life to be better for the poor not fairer. Everyone starving is fairer than most eating well and a few eating excelently (just an analogy BTW).

There's no reason we can't have both "fair" and "better".  There is already enough per capita income, worldwide, to provide a decent living for everyone...

That really did stand out for me. Are you sure? If so, do you have any links to evidence?

Just to be certain. You are not talking about "money" are you. You actually mean we produce enough to improve the majority of peoples lives, if the "items" got distributed better?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 14 2007,16:43   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 14 2007,14:09)
There is already enough per capita income, worldwide, to provide a decent living for everyone...[/quote]
That really did stand out for me. Are you sure? If so, do you have any links to evidence?

Just to be certain. You are not talking about "money" are you. You actually mean we produce enough to improve the majority of peoples lives, if the "items" got distributed better?

I'm absolutely certain.  One clue:  The total wealth owned by the 497 individual billionnaires in the world in 2001 (total worth about $1.54 trillion) is larger than the total gross national product of all the nations of sub-Saharan Africa, combined.


As for per capita production, well, according to good ole Wikipedia ("World Economy"), the worldwide gross domestic product per capita (amount of goods and services produced globally, per person) is around $7-10,000.

That means we produce, right now, enough goods and services for every man, women and child on the planet to get at least $7,000 worth of production per year, each -- or a minimum of $28,000 for each family of four.

I'd say that would be a pretty decent living. Particulary since, currently, over half of the world's population (over 3 billion people) lives on per capita incomes of less than $750 per year.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,07:42   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 14 2007,16:43)
...
That means we produce, right now, enough goods and services for every man, women and child on the planet to get at least $7,000 worth of production per year, each -- or a minimum of $28,000 for each family of four.

I'd say that would be a pretty decent living. Particulary since, currently, over half of the world's population (over 3 billion people) lives on per capita incomes of less than $750 per year.

So it is at least possible for most people to have a better life at the expense of a few people (relatively speaking), having to lower their standards to the norm. I would be willing to give that a go (of sorts), if it looked as though it could be made to work.

I have a few qualms about the way you seem to want to distribute wealth though. It apears you are advocating a direct share per individual. That would make having a large family a way for economic gain. Also, while a portion of people would probably be willing to work despite getting no economic boost, I bet an awfull lot of people wouldn't.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. My home PC has gone haywire.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,07:45   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,07:42)
I have a few qualms about the way you seem to want to distribute wealth though. It apears you are advocating a direct share per individual. That would make having a large family a way for economic gain.

No, I would rather do away with money totally and just have direct distribution.  

Those who need it, get it.

Peoplw with big families wouldn't need any more, per person, than those who are single.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,07:57   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,07:42)
Also, while a portion of people would probably be willing to work despite getting no economic boost, I bet an awfull lot of people wouldn't.

Nor would they need to.  I'd like to see a society of full UN-employement, where virtually nobody has to work.

We already produce all the food we need (globally) with fewer than 5% of the population.  And the percentage of people who actually work at manufacturing anything is less than 25% and is also falling lower and lower.  Most people today work in non-producing areas like advertising and marketing -- things that are only necessary to insure that this company gets the money instead of that company.  So even if everyone who doesn't actually produce anything went home, there'd be no economic loss.  Further, most people who DO produce things, just produce them for this company instead of that one, a wasteful duplication of effort that we can do without.

Add to that the benefits of automation, robotics and other new methods of production, and we can get a society where fewer than 5% of the population actually has to produce anything, yet still have plenty of production for everyone.

We could then do one of two things (1) let the people who WANT to do these jobs (and there are always people who like to do these things), do them, or (2) have a two- or three-hour work-week for everyone.  Or some combination of both.

But alas, now we are getting into specific questions that simply aren't up to me to answer -- they are up to ALL of us to decide, collectively.  It's not my aim or goal to tell everyone what to do, nor is it my aim or goal to decide how to do every little thing -- just like the writers of the Conswtitution didn't list all the ways that elections would be held for local dogcatcher.  Once the general framework is in place (all of us decide our economic goals collectively, together), the details can be worked out democratically by all of us, in whatever way works best.

I'm sure there will be many vigorous arguments, disagreements and debates over such questions.  As well there *should* be -- that is democracy in action.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,07:59   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,07:42)
So it is at least possible for most people to have a better life at the expense of a few people (relatively speaking), having to lower their standards to the norm. I would be willing to give that a go (of sorts), if it looked as though it could be made to work.

The problem, of course, is that the tiny minority who currently own everything, won't give up that position of privilege voluntarily.  And since they control all the national governments, police and militaries, they have the means to resist.

That means a fight.

A  *big*  fight.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,08:33   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,07:45)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,07:42)
I have a few qualms about the way you seem to want to distribute wealth though. It apears you are advocating a direct share per individual. That would make having a large family a way for economic gain.

No, I would rather do away with money totally and just have direct distribution.  

Those who need it, get it.

Peoplw with big families wouldn't need any more, per person, than those who are single.

My bolding.

I think you would have to do that, or at least alter money into something that works slightly differently. As long as we have the sort of currency we are familiar with, I doubt it is possible to have a working fair system.

The thing with money is that it is so ingrained into our lives that money and wealth are confused with each other.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,09:36   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,08:33)
The thing with money is that it is so ingrained into our lives that money and wealth are confused with each other.

Well, money is just a medium of exchange.  It doesn't mean anything in and of itself -- it's the social context behind it that gives it its power.

What needs to change is this idea that a person's "worth" is measured primarily by his, well, "worth" (in capitalism, of course, the accumulation of wealth is the be-all and end-all -- there simply *is* no other goal to the system).  

Plenty of people look down on me because I drive a bike, live in a garage, and don't care about making money.  There simply is no reason on God's green planet why anyone has to be a billionnaire and have more wealth than they could possibly even spend in a lifetime. All they are doing is taking bread out of other people's mouths (LOTS of them).  All we, as a society, are doing is rewarding greed and selfishness (and then we cluck our tongues over why "greed" and "selfishness" seem to be "human nature").

I'd like to see it so that someone who hoards money (and that's all billionnaires do) is viewed as just as squirrelly as someone who hoards, say, Fig Newtons or TV sets.  Nutty.

Indeed, I view my poor money-less self as far far richer (in the things that really matter) than all of the wealthy people I've ever met.  As far as I can tell, they waste their entire lives in the relentless pursuit of things which, in the end, don't matter at all.  It'd be sad, if they didn't ruthlessly drive so many other people into the mud by walking on their backs in the process.

Alas, as someone once said, "even if you win the rat race, you're still just a rat."  (sigh)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,11:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,09:36)
         
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 21 2007,08:33)
The thing with money is that it is so ingrained into our lives that money and wealth are confused with each other.

Well, money is just a medium of exchange.  It doesn't mean anything in and of itself -- it's the social context behind it that gives it its power.

Wealth will be accumulated one way or the other.  Eliminating money and going to a barter system does nothing to change that.  All it does is changes is the process of arbitrage.  Start everyone out with the same amount and you will still end up with disparities in the end. Equal opportunity never guarantees equal outcome.
         
Quote

What needs to change is this idea that a person's "worth" is measured primarily by his, well, "worth" (in capitalism, of course, the accumulation of wealth is the be-all and end-all -- there simply *is* no other goal to the system).  

Plenty of people look down on me because I drive a bike, live in a garage, and don't care about making money.

I don't. We all at some point are presented with that decision to chose how we balance the different aspects of our life and I respect those that have made the choice you have. Heck, my father was a middle manager for a Fortune 500 company and passed on opportunities to advance into the executive suite because he didn't like the trade-offs that came with it.  Same choice, different point on the continuum. But don't kid yourself, Lenny.  While you consume little and live simply, you still benefit from the efforts of those you openly disdain.  Your self-satisfaction is a little misplaced.  
You can thank capitalists for the low cost, high quality computer you post from.  You can thank them that you don't have to stand in line to buy food staples.  You can thank them for printing and distributing the books you write.  In short, you are firmly ensconced in the system.  Thoreau you are not.
       
Quote

 There simply is no reason on God's green planet why anyone has to be a billionnaire and have more wealth than they could possibly even spend in a lifetime. All they are doing is taking bread out of other people's mouths (LOTS of them).  All we, as a society, are doing is rewarding greed and selfishness (and then we cluck our tongues over why "greed" and "selfishness" seem to be "human nature").

Self-preservation, and its modern successor, self interest, are human nature.  The reason that capitalism is the dominant economic system is because it doesn't seek to suppress, only to constrain, self-interest.  The abject failure of every attempt at socialism writ large ought to be instructive.  "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" are lovely words, but non-starters in practice. There is always someone looking to gain an advantage.   And always someone to give it.  
Quote

I'd like to see it so that someone who hoards money (and that's all billionnaires do) is viewed as just as squirrelly as someone who hoards, say, Fig Newtons or TV sets.  Nutty.

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that an intelligent person like yourself actually believes this.  Billionaires don't hoard money. The idea that they take all their wealth in excess of what they consume and stash it away in some warehouse where it is never seen again is laughable.  If that was the case, capitalism would have collapsed ages ago.  The rich invest.  Money invested is money circulated.  That wealth distribution today is increasingly concentrated is not a notion I would contest or, indeed, even defend.  But the notion that billionares are leeches because they don't break a sweat is pablum for the proletariat.  Try building a plant and distributing a product without a capitalist.  Hell, try to print your next book without the help of someone out to make a buck.
 
Quote

Alas, as someone once said, "even if you win the rat race, you're still just a rat."  (sigh)

Yeah, but they can eat all the fanciest, Dijon cheeses.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,12:52   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
Wealth will be accumulated one way or the other.  Eliminating money and going to a barter system does nothing to change that.  All it does is changes is the process of arbitrage.  Start everyone out with the same amount and you will still end up with disparities in the end. Equal opportunity never guarantees equal outcome.

No one is talking about, or suggesting, "equal outcome".  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,12:54   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
You can thank capitalists for the low cost, high quality computer you post from.




Remember who it is that assembled this low-cost computer, and the conditions they work under.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,12:56   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
  Thoreau you are not.

Nor can I ever be, living in the US.  After all, this nation, and its economy, live entirely on the backs of the rest of the world.

Just like Rome.


I do indeed invite everyone to live as, uh, extravagently as I do, however. The world would certainly be a much better place.  For everyone.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,13:18   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
The reason that capitalism is the dominant economic system is because it doesn't seek to suppress, only to constrain, self-interest.

Well, I think it had something to do with the historical fact that Europe conquered the rest of the world, enslaved its native peoples, destroyed its native cultures, and imposed the European social/economic system upon them by force.

Self-interest, ya know.

So, in a way, I guess you are right.  Capitalism triumphed worldwide because it *doesn't* seek to suppress "self-interest".  Indeed, it armed and supported it.  

Gee, thanks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,13:20   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
Yeah, but they can eat all the fanciest, Dijon cheeses.

And that's great.  Assuming, of course, that (1) you happen to be one of the forutnate few, and (2) you don't care what happens to everyone else.  (shrug)

The Roman Emperors and the European monarchs, of course, also ate the best cheese.  But at least they made the PRETENSE of caring what happened to the rest of their people.

Capitalism not only doesn't make the pretense, but celebrates the lack of it.  "Self-interest", indeed, is its sole and only god.


Sad.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,16:17   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,12:52)
       
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,11:59)
Wealth will be accumulated one way or the other.  Eliminating money and going to a barter system does nothing to change that.  All it does is changes is the process of arbitrage.  Start everyone out with the same amount and you will still end up with disparities in the end. Equal opportunity never guarantees equal outcome.

No one is talking about, or suggesting, "equal outcome".  (shrug)

No, of course not. Just more equal, right? Take from those you think have too much and give to those who you think have too little.  A year or two later, guess what?  You'll be right back to where you started.
     
Quote
     
Quote
You can thank capitalists for the low cost, high quality computer you post from.

Remember who it is that assembled this low-cost computer, and the conditions they work under.

Ah, yes, the noble savages. Living in peace and harmony with each other and nature until the evil Western capitalists came and despoiled their land.  Don't presume to lecture me, Lenny. I've spent more time than you can imagine working in factories in Mexico and moving production lines to factories in China. No one is forcing them to build those computers.  Folks there literally stand in line for a chance to apply for those jobs.  Why is that, do you suppose?  Let me tell you. Self-interest. Building those low cost computers pays a far better wage, and provides a far better life, then they had available to them in their unspoiled native culture.       
Quote
     
Quote
The reason that capitalism is the dominant economic system is because it doesn't seek to suppress, only to constrain, self-interest.

Well, I think it had something to do with the historical fact that Europe conquered the rest of the world, enslaved its native peoples, destroyed its native cultures, and imposed the European social/economic system upon them by force.

You act as if imperialism is somehow only endemic to capitalist systems.  You are far too well read to believe that.  I don't disagree with the notion that imperialism is an act of extreme self-interest.  But, as I contend, self-interest is the modern successor to self-preservation and is part and parcel of the human condition.  I am pretty sure we all know the counter-examples of socialist imperialists.  
     
Quote
Capitalism not only doesn't make the pretense, but celebrates the lack of it.  "Self-interest", indeed, is its sole and only god.

Maybe so, and I would never argue that capitalism is without it's excesses.  It isn't.  But to say that greed and self-interest is an artifact of capitalism is putting the cart before the horse.  Face it, socialism as an economic system is dead, dead, dead.  The only thing left is.......well, you know the rest.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:10   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Ah, yes, the noble savages. Living in peace and harmony with each other and nature until the evil Western capitalists came and despoiled their land.

Huh?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:11   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
 Don't presume to lecture me, Lenny. I've spent more time than you can imagine working in factories in Mexico and moving production lines to factories in China. No one is forcing them to build those computers.  Folks there literally stand in line for a chance to apply for those jobs.  Why is that, do you suppose?  

I'm sure they love it.

One day, they'll show you just how much.



Self-interest, ya know.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:15   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
 I am pretty sure we all know the counter-examples of socialist imperialists.  

Um, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a fan of the Soviet Union, China, or whatever.

I'm, uh, not.

Indeed, by giving what was (for me) a quite large sum of money to the striking coal workers in the Ukraine in 1988, who helped spark the rebellions that destroyed the Soviet Union, I helped bring it down.

So please feel free to badmouth the Leninists all you like.  I assure you that I've already done worse.  Both to their faces (I've been expelled from more parties than you even know exist), and in print.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:19   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Building those low cost computers pays a far better wage, and provides a far better life, then they had available to them in their unspoiled native culture.  

Yeah, no doubt that's why most of the world lives so well, huh . . . . (snicker)  (giggle)

Kind of like the slaveowners in the antebellum South, who were also all full of stories about how happy their slaves were, being provided with, ya know, food and clothing and shelter and all. . . .

I'm curious, though -- what happens to "your" workers (coughcough) if they try to unionize, I wonder . . . . . ?  Or do you simply assume they're so deleriously happy with their jobs that they have no need to . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:29   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,19:10)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Ah, yes, the noble savages. Living in peace and harmony with each other and nature until the evil Western capitalists came and despoiled their land.

Huh?

See your own comment, reproduced below.

Quote
Well, I think it had something to do with the historical fact that Europe conquered the rest of the world, enslaved its native peoples, destroyed its native cultures, and imposed the European social/economic system upon them by force.


--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:35   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Face it, socialism as an economic system is dead, dead, dead.  The only thing left is.......well, you know the rest.

I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?

Actual socialism revolves around in the UK every so often, oh yes, there's the muddiness that comes from conservative rule, and the people being afraid of the soviet union and such like, and total socialism will never be brought in, but we have a mild form of it in place right now, even under Brown.

I feel that, as a socialist myself (no, I'm NOT a Marxist and I'm CERTAINLY not a Leninist or Trotskyite) I should insist, in a civil, yet firm way, in absolutely no way was the USSR or China socialist. They were Marxist Lenninist, which is a corruption of Communism, NOT socialism.

I do not care to get involved with the fight you are in, but I do feel compelled to inform you, either of you, when you stray from the truth, even unknowingly. Socialism is not Marxism, which is not Leninism, which is what the USSR had.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:43   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,19:15)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
 I am pretty sure we all know the counter-examples of socialist imperialists.  

Um, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a fan of the Soviet Union, China, or whatever.

No, I'm not assuming that. In fact, I know that you aren't.  But there isn't exactly many successful socialist countries now are there?  At least none that don't have a significant infusion of Western capital. If Hugo Chavez didn't have all that oil money to throw around, do you really think he'd still be around?  Perhaps you could hold forth for us as to why socialism hasn't worked so far.

EDIT:  See my response to Ian below for a little clarity in what I mean by "socialist countries."  I've been a little too loose in my language.
   
Quote
   
Quote

Don't presume to lecture me, Lenny. I've spent more time than you can imagine working in factories in Mexico and moving production lines to factories in China. No one is forcing them to build those computers.  Folks there literally stand in line for a chance to apply for those jobs.  Why is that, do you suppose?

I'm sure they love it.

One day, they'll show you just how much.


Ahh, yes. The coming workers paradise.  From each according to their means, to each according to their need.  I'm surprised no one has tried that yet.  Oh, wait....

(snicker) (giggle)

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,19:54   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 21 2007,19:35)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,16:17)
Face it, socialism as an economic system is dead, dead, dead.  The only thing left is.......well, you know the rest.

I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?

Actually, a fair question.  I am using the term rather loosely.  I am referring, in general, to any system that centralizes ownership of capital.  

I am no libertarian to the extent that I agree there are some things that need to be centrally controlled, such as national defense and public safety, to mention two.  And I think the health care system in the US is a travesty that will end up having to be a single payer system.  But, overall, I believe the economic model that works the best seeks not to control, but only to constrain, the actors in the system.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:08   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:43)
 But there isn't exactly many successful socialist countries now are there?  At least none that don't have a significant infusion of Western capital. If Hugo Chavez didn't have all that oil money to throw around, do you really think he'd still be around?  Perhaps you could hold forth for us as to why socialism hasn't worked so far.

Well, it's quite simple, actually ---- everyone ---capitlaists and Leninsts alike -- keeps shooting all the socialists.  People with power, prefer to keep it.


Perhaps you'd be so kind as to epxlain to me how capitalism has been a success in, say, Guatemala or Bangladesh or  . . . . ?

Or, indeed, how ANY economic system could be considered a "success" when a 7,000 people starve to death every day  . . . ?

If the purpose of capitalism is to concentrate wealth at the top, well, then it's been a rousing success.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of an economic system is to provide the necessaries of life to people, then capitalism can only be viewed as an abject failure (and much as I detest the Leninists, it has to be said that at least they did the best they could with what they had to make sure no one starved).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:22   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:08)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:43)
 But there isn't exactly many successful socialist countries now are there?  At least none that don't have a significant infusion of Western capital. If Hugo Chavez didn't have all that oil money to throw around, do you really think he'd still be around?  Perhaps you could hold forth for us as to why socialism hasn't worked so far.

Well, it's quite simple, actually ---- everyone ---capitlaists and Leninsts alike -- keeps shooting all the socialists.
 
Perhaps you'd be so kind as to epxlain to me how capitalism has been a success in, say, Guatemala or Bangladesh or  . . . . ?

Probably about as well as it was working in Chicago as described by Upton Sinclair.  What is instructive is that the US has advanced from there without abandoning capitalism.  Is the US now perfect? Hell no.  We still have problems with poverty and, as I said, our health care system is a disgrace.  But, socialism isn't the answer. Not, at least, until you eliminate the selfish nature of man.  But, things are looking up. I hear there is a think tank out in Seattle that wants to eliminate man's depravity, too. Maybe you could look them up.   ;)
 
Quote
People with power, prefer to keep it.

And socialists differ exactly how again?

EDIT: Added back a comment that I responded to but didn't quote.  Sorry.  I blame the Top Sail Pale Ale.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:25   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:54)
I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?[/quote]

Actually, a fair question.  I am using the term rather loosely.  I am referring, in general, to any system that centralizes ownership of capital.  

You mean like modern-day corporate capitalism, where the wealthiest 10% of the population owns more than 66% of the total corporate stock, the richest 1% owns 44% of all stock, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 2%?  

Is THAT the sort of, uh, "centralized ownership of capital" that you are referring to . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:28   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:22)
 But, socialism isn't the answer. Not, at least, until you eliminate the selfish nature of man.  

As I've already noted, it's the corporados, not me, who have already destroyed private ownership of capital, who have already destroyed the individual proprietor economy, who have already introduced collective economic planning, and have already separated management from ownership.

And, by golly, they did it for their own selfish reasons.

Me, I'm content to sit back, let them continue the process, and when they're done, kick them out and run the whole thing democratically, in our (pay attention here) own collective self-interests.


The sturdy self-interested indiviidual owner that you're so in love with, doesn't exist anymore.  The corporados destroyed it over 100 years ago.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:29   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:22)
Quote
People with power, prefer to keep it.

And socialists differ exactly how again?

They don't.

That's why I'm just as happy to fight them if necessary as I am to fight capitalists.

It's in my self-interest, you know.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:38   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:25)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:54)
Quote
I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?


Actually, a fair question.  I am using the term rather loosely.  I am referring, in general, to any system that centralizes ownership of capital.  

You mean like modern-day corporate capitalism, where the wealthiest 10% of the population owns more than 66% of the total corporate stock, the richest 1% owns 44% of all stock, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 2%?  

Is THAT the sort of, uh, "centralized ownership of capital" that you are referring to . . . ?

I don't think you are necessarily decieving here, but I would like to see where you got that from.  With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.

EDIT: This does start to get us into the issue of the dysfunction of corporate governance, where I think we would probably find ourselves on common ground.  Strange bedfellows, and all that.

And again, I need to point out that the wealth concentration you disdain so isn't idle wealth in the sense that it is sitting somewhere out of circulation.  It is invested in companies that use it to finance growth that leads to the purchase of plant that has to be built and the hiring of employees to run the plant.  Lenny, you really should hold your nose and take a course in corporate finance.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:38   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:22)
Quote
People with power, prefer to keep it.

And socialists differ exactly how again?

They don't.

Well, fudge!  You seem to be an advocate for a system that is no damn better than any of the rest. Bummer!

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,20:51   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,21:38)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:25)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,19:54)
Quote
I feel I must ask of this, what socialism are you on about here? Actual socialism, Marxist leninism, Maoism or....what?


Actually, a fair question.  I am using the term rather loosely.  I am referring, in general, to any system that centralizes ownership of capital.  

You mean like modern-day corporate capitalism, where the wealthiest 10% of the population owns more than 66% of the total corporate stock, the richest 1% owns 44% of all stock, and the bottom 40% of the population owns less than 2%?  

Is THAT the sort of, uh, "centralized ownership of capital" that you are referring to . . . ?

I don't think you are necessarily decieving here, but I would like to see where you got that from.  With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.

EDIT: This does start to get us into the issue of the dysfunction of corporate governance, where I think we would probably find ourselves on common ground.  Strange bedfellows, and all that.

And again, I need to point out that the wealth concentration you disdain so isn't idle wealth in the sense that it is sitting somewhere out of circulation.  It is invested in companies that use it to finance growth that leads to the purchase of plant that has to be built and the hiring of employees to run the plant.  Lenny, you really should hold your nose and take a course in corporate finance.

Personally I think communism as an economic system is downright stupid. 'Course, I'm a layman, so my opinions on that subject should be considered about as expert as Davetard's opinions about biology--i.e. not worth a shit. So I'm generally staying out of this discussion, having nothing to add. But on the small point here, it is possible for Lenny's figures to be true, and simultaneously for your statement
Quote
With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.
to be true.

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,21:02   

Quote (stevestory @ July 21 2007,20:51)
But on the small point here, it is possible for Lenny's figures to be true, and simultaneously for your statement  
Quote
With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.
to be true.

Indeed, but it does put paid to the notion Lenny is peddling about some cabal controlling all the wealth.  That there is a concentration in wealth is not disputed.  But, what Lenny doesn't state is that many of us (at least in the US), in some form, are owners of capital.  That there is serious dysfunction in the corporate world (which is also not disputed) is a problem of corporate governance, not economic systems.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,21:49   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:38)
I don't think you are necessarily decieving here, but I would like to see where you got that from.  With the advent of 401Ks, IRAs and other such financial devices, ownership of capital is far more widely available now than probably any time in the past.

EDIT: This does start to get us into the issue of the dysfunction of corporate governance, where I think we would probably find ourselves on common ground.  Strange bedfellows, and all that.



Do a google for "distribution of wealth".  Or better, spend an evening going through the US Government's own economic "statistical abstracts".

You'll be surprised at what you find.

One thing you will find is that, despite 401(k)'s and ESOP's and all that, stock ownership has gotten MORE concentrated over the past few decades, not less.

And that hasn't a damn thing to do with "governance", and everything to dow ith the accumulation of wealth, which is, after all, what capitalism is all about.

Self-interest, and all that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,21:51   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:38)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,20:29)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:22)
 
Quote
People with power, prefer to keep it.

And socialists differ exactly how again?

They don't.

Well, fudge!  You seem to be an advocate for a system that is no damn better than any of the rest. Bummer!

One thing that is better, is that wealthy people have to work for their living.

Not like now.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,21:52   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,21:02)
 But, what Lenny doesn't state is that many of us (at least in the US), in some form, are owners of capital.  

How many of us are able to make a living from it . . . .


Or, more accurately, have OTHERS make our living from it. . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,21:55   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,21:02)
That there is serious dysfunction in the corporate world (which is also not disputed) is a problem of corporate governance, not economic systems.

Alas, "corporate governance" is, itself, an inevitable and inescapable consequence of capitalism.  In any system of competition, there will be winners, and losers.  The losers disappear, and the winners get bigger.


As I said before, the economic system you seem to like, that of a Smithian group of small English shopkeeper proprietors, has been dead for over 100 years.  Capitalism itself killed it.

All in the name of "self-interest".

I'm a little curious, though, as to how you would propose such concentration of corporate power (economic, political and/or social) be prevented . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,21:57   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:38)
And again, I need to point out that the wealth concentration you disdain so isn't idle wealth in the sense that it is sitting somewhere out of circulation.  It is invested in companies that use it to finance growth that leads to the purchase of plant that has to be built and the hiring of employees to run the plant.  

Were that true, the distribution of wealth would be steadily getting more and more even, as more and more factories are built and workers are paid.

That, uh, seems not to be the case.

Why is that?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,22:31   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,21:57)
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,20:38)
And again, I need to point out that the wealth concentration you disdain so isn't idle wealth in the sense that it is sitting somewhere out of circulation.  It is invested in companies that use it to finance growth that leads to the purchase of plant that has to be built and the hiring of employees to run the plant.  

Were that true, the distribution of wealth would be steadily getting more and more even, as more and more factories are built and workers are paid.

That, uh, seems not to be the case.

Why is that?

Umm, no, Lenny it doesn't.  And if you don't understand why, then perhaps you aren't ready for that course in corporate finance. You have yet to master basic economics.  But let me give you a hint:  the total of wealth in the world is not the same as the amount of currency in circulation.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,23:07   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,22:31)
 But let me give you a hint:  the total of wealth in the world is not the same as the amount of currency in circulation.

No kidding.

And yet a tiny minority monopolizes most of the wealth.

Why is that?


Oh, and of that wealth that the tiny minority monopolizes, how much of it, again, do those monpolizers actually, ya know, produce . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,23:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,21:55)
As I said before, the economic system you seem to like, that of a Smithian group of small English shopkeeper proprietors, has been dead for over 100 years.  Capitalism itself killed it.

All in the name of "self-interest".

I'm a little curious, though, as to how you would propose such concentration of corporate power (economic, political and/or social) be prevented . . . . ?

I'm still curious . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,23:10   

Oh, and that wealth that the nice civic-minded capitalists invest for our benefit -- ya know, to give us all jobs and such -- where does it come from, again . . .?  Who produces it . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,23:13   

By the way, Carson, please feel free to continue to be as condescending and smarmy to me as you like.  It's been done before by others, far more effectively.  Alas, when I unionized their plant, they ceased being condescending and smarmy.

One picket line does far more to educate people about the realities of economics than a thousand business courses ever will.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2007,23:46   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ July 21 2007,23:07)
 
Quote (carlsonjok @ July 21 2007,22:31)
 But let me give you a hint:  the total of wealth in the world is not the same as the amount of currency in circulation.

No kidding.

And yet a tiny minority monopolizes most of the wealth.

Why is that?

Seriously, dude, you really need to sit in a few classes at a business school.    
Quote

Oh, and of that wealth that the tiny minority monopolizes, how much of it, again, do those monpolizers actually, ya know, produce . . . ?

All of it and none of it.
 
Quote
By the way, Carson, please feel free to continue to be as condescending and smarmy to me as you like.  It's been done before by others, far more effectively.

I figure it is the style of communication you know best.
 
Quote
Alas, when I unionized their plant, they ceased being condescending and smarmy.

Here is the thing, Lenny. I don't fit neatly in the little caricature that you have constructed for me.  I am not anti-union.  I understand the role of the union in transforming American economics. Both in the last century and this one.  Oh, and get this.  I worked in union shops for over 16 years and managed union workforces for over 10 of those years.  In all that time, I never had a single greivance filed against me.  And when I no longer directly supervised represented employees, none of the supervisors that I managed ever had grievances filed against them while they were in my organization.  .

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005