Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

it's that time again

Name: s+ !!s+5OzRVBRS4Mx+B 2011-06-26 6:38

your sociopolitical position(s), as briefly as you can.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-09 17:44

>>40
Of course, this is the most logical retort that capitalism has to offer in its defense of itself as an institution. I believe it shall remain the standard against which we shall judge all other budding economic systems for generations to come.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-09 22:41

>>237
>>239
>>240
You're just as guilty as 236.

You just said "Margaret Thatcher was a fucking cunt" without really saying anything logical.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-16 5:39

>>242
So did you (and I)

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-16 9:28

>>243
I would never defile the name of someone so good and virtuous as Lady Thatcher and I certainly won't tolerate your slander.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-16 9:48

>>244
Libel.  Slander is spoken.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-20 21:18

>>245
who gives a fuck

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-27 6:56

If you have other views than OP's, you are wrong.

Don't think i'm just being arrogant either. Hitler was objectively morally wrong. If you argue THAT, you are wrong. There is such a thing as morality, and there is such a thing as absolute correctness on moral issues.

Name: Anonymous 2011-10-30 11:10

>>244
The damage from Thatcher and John Major's reigns are still being felt today, and are now further being drilled in by Cameron. New Labour is also to blame as well. It would be nice if there was a Lib Dem PM for once.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 7:14

>>248
The damage from Thatcher and John Major's reigns are still being felt today
what a ridiculous statemnet.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-05 12:45

>>248
They undid the damage caused by state unions in the 70s who were demanding that the country subsidize the industries they failed to keep efficient and economically productive. This is why Thatcher was elected 3 times and in part why there is a McDonalds in Beijing and Moscow and the world is hurtling towards a global capitalist hegemony.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-09 17:20

>>249
Quite the contrary.

>>250
They undid the damage caused by state unions in the 70s who were demanding that the country subsidize the industries they failed to keep efficient and economically productive.
False. Thatcher and her ilk effectively butchered the trade unions (who are now finally starting to get back on their feet) and the industries that were subsidized actually not only kept wealth inside the UK, but also created wealth within it. She also helped destroy domestic coal mining and now the UK imports a vast majority of coal for energy consumption. You say it's to improve the environment? Not when you shift coal production to the other side of the planet and have to have it transported back.
This is why Thatcher was elected 3 times and in part why there is a McDonalds in Beijing and Moscow and the world is hurtling towards a global capitalist hegemony.
Yay! Let's make the rest of the world obese like the populations of the Anglosphere nations, and create a cultural corporate wasteland on a global scale! You Tories are so pig-headed and myopic that you don't comprehend the damage from the policies of your market gods and goddesses does to your country in your own backyard. You say, "Take a look around in the Real World™", my question to you is, "Have you?". It's evident once you see long-closed factories that used to manufacture things in the UK.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-18 20:50

this board is slow but i like the userbase more than the other boards

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-19 3:04

I'm a socialist.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-19 4:31

>>251
The economy is larger and more complex than a closed factory or a shut down coal mine, your 2 little fleshy eyeballs can only pick up a thin spectrum of light reflected off a small portion of the world at any one time. UK coal was more expensive for a reason, it needed more energy to mine deeper, keep pumping water out and to process the poor quality coal, this may have taken more energy than scooping up some surface coal from Eastern Europe and shipping it over. Higher coal prices and extra taxation for subsidies meant the rest of the economy suffered, it leads to higher electricity costs, industries dependent on cheap coal have to downsize and outsource to stay competitive. As for the environment, since we are going to burn away all our precious fossil fuels anyway, doesn't it make more sense to do so as efficiently as possible? The more needs and wants are satiated, the more wealth we are willing to spare for investment in research.

What we have here is a classic issue in economics, we are not experts in every field, it is more difficult to quantify the exact impact of a rise in coal prices than it is to quantify coal mining job losses. As a result we end up with a political situation where it looks better on paper to say "this policy will result in job losses" than it is to say "this policy will have a negative indirect effect on the rest of the economy", so often public opinion leans against it.

Luckily Margaret Thatcher existed and she succeeded in convincing the public to see sense, her master stroke as a politician was to educate the public and ensure they understood what exactly is happening, like Napoleon at the Siege of Toulon when he restored faith in leadership during the great terror of the revolution.

Not sure what all that "cultural corporate wasteland" stuff is about, if you want wholefoods and native arts and crafts from Papua New Guinea there is nothing stopping you from starting your own business in those sectors. As for manufacturing it's about comparative advantage, Britain is one of the best countries in the world at advancing technology, designing and branding products and services and utilizing commerce to negotiate deals, get sales and put them into practice, in order to focus on more manufacturing we'd have to divert resources away from technology which means that places like China and Nigeria would pick up the slack. Do you really want a world full of shoddy Chinese designs and Nigerian scams? Perhaps not.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-24 0:51

>>254
concisely disagreeing with you would require at least four hours of my time.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-24 9:05

>>255
Just type whatever springs to mind like I do.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-27 15:29

>>254
psssst: whole foods is a corporation.
Also, tl;dr

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-27 19:37

>>257
tl;dr: >>251 didn't take into account other factors, a long list of factors in fact, too long to list in a tl;dr version

Probably symptomatic of ideological bias.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-28 2:10

>>258
Probably symptomatic of ideological bias.
It's no secret that Tories and New Labour have been dismantling British manufacturing and the coal industry (and anything else they can get their greedy little hands on and throw away to the wolves) for decades now. If people fail to see that, that's not exactly my problem. But, hey, if people want to project while having their thumbs up their asses, I guess whatever makes them feel better.

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-29 9:27

environmentalist libertarian

Name: Anonymous 2011-11-30 14:42

>>260
speaks in oxymorons.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-26 22:06

>>261
implying that's an oxymoron

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-27 10:29

>>259
Manufacturing output actually more than doubled during Margaret Thatcher's tenure, though about half of this was just bouncing back after the collapse caused by the previous socialist government it can't really be said that Maggie did anything significantly different or was worse overall.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/09/article-1337230-0C6BDF31000005DC-67_468x358.jpg

British coal isn't the only industry.

Name: Anonymous 2011-12-30 14:30

>>263
I don't count Labour after 1995 or so since they've shed whatever original intentions the party had. They're basically a softer Tory party now.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-04 0:53

>>263
dailymail.co.uk
TABLOIDS CONSIDERED HARMFUL

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-22 18:47

>>265
implying TDM is tabloid and not a respectable news source

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-09 10:42

bump

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-09 14:02

>>266
Did you not watch the Leveson Inquiry? Oh wait, of course you didn't, too busy reading about celebrity gossip and how immigrants are the worst thing ever.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-14 0:58

Capitalism sucks because it discourages cooperation among people.  Imagine for a moment that you see your neighbor’s house catch fire.  It also just happens that both you and your neighbor are unemployed and are looking for work in the same field.  Will you call the firefighters right away, or will you hesitate for a moment, thinking about the job that both you and your neighbor are supposed to interview for tomorrow?

The dog-eat-dog competition of capitalism is great for producing cheap cell phones that you must replace every 18 months, but it’s failing miserably in dealing with global issues like climate change, lack of clean water, poverty, environmental degradation, addiction to fossil energy, delivering affordable education or health care or housing, etc.

So to answer OP’s question, I am in favor of a system similar to PARECON (participatory economics) as defined by Michael Albert.

http://books.zcommunications.org/ParEcon/lookingforward/toc.htm

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-14 7:44

>>269
Complete nonsense. You'd save your neighbour because of your sense of morality, capitalism doesn't even factor into the equation at all. And then you will compete with your neighbour fairly, getting the job based on merit, because you were the better candidate.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-14 18:53

>>270
It was a shitty example but the point remains that pure capitalism often provides extra incentive to act immorally.

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-14 19:31

>>269
>>271
you're incredibly stupid

Name: Anonymous 2012-04-14 22:01

>>271
Well at least you admit the scenario sucked for the purposes of the point you're trying to make.
Now try again.  You still have a point you want to make.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List