Human self interest flows through any system set up by humanity. Any system will contain within it practices that opponents of it can point to and rather stupidly blame on a concept.

Capitalism with constraints has succeeded over any other system. Even the Chinese rather laughingly use it being the hypocrites they are.

A problem I have with a lot of the ideological is now their belief systems aren't based upon practical outcomes but rather feelings. The outcomes they end up with rarely make much sense...at least to me.

Pure communism is attractive, especially to the politically naive, because in its pure state there is an aspect of fairness about it. But communism disregards human nature and even works against it. It is a system run by humans and hence becomes corrupt as soon as it starts.

Socialism doesn't deserve the same level of criticism that attempts to enact communism deserve. However, the only form of half socialism I've seen work is within Nordic countries...Mostly countries with small populations and large resources...and they tax through the nines....Their defence spending has also been very low because they have enjoyed decades of peace protected by America and Nato without really paying much for it....And when I say Nato I mean America, France and the UK.

This socialism or any other form has never worked anywhere else. But it has certainly caused terrible financial messes that is for sure.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jun 2017 1.50am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What was wrong with the 1945 Attlee Government?

Going back to the ops question

Green party because they want a 4 day working week

I would have campaigned strongly for Bernie Sanders if I was a US citizen. He's certainly not a communist. I believe that he would have stood a much better chance of beating Trump than Hilary.

More foolishness from Trump yesterday. I enjoyed Macron's trolling of Trump saying "let's make our planet great again".

I agree wholeheartedly with his comments: "President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement is an abdication of American leadership and an international disgrace. At this moment, when climate change is already causing devastating harm around the world, we do not have the moral right to turn our backs on efforts to preserve this planet for future generations.

"The United States must play a leading role in the global campaign to stop climate change and transition rapidly away from fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient sources of energy. We must do this with or without the support of Donald Trump and the fossil fuel industry."

May's response has been typically weak and wobbly on this. The UK are signed up to Paris and it's of paramount importance. We should be using our "special relationship" to put pressure on the US and joining China and the EU in condemning Trump. Seeming both Trump and May want to turn the clock back. The Tory manifesto is pretty dismal on climate change, energy policy and investment in tech. The Labour response has been robust on this issue. May is spineless. She would be a disaster in any sort of negotiation. This is a view shared by high profile British diplomats who see her style as confrontational and ineffective with Europe and pandering and weak with the US.

You do realise that Labour voted in favour of invoking article 50?

But this isn't like buying a used car. How do you walk away? Pull up the drawbridge? We HAVE to have a relationship with the EU, we don't have a choice. So some arrangements have to be put in place. There is no such thing as "no deal". You need agreement on really basic stuff like border control all the way through to maintaining supply chains for UK and EU businesses. We won't just stop importing and exporting to the EU if they can't agree.

In negotiations you need an element of getting along and bonhomie to get the best deals. Give and take. Corbyn is a much more polite and affable man and likely to get concessions than May in my opinion who has no ability to react to the unexpected and a cold and off-putting manner.

I understand Hitler was, whilst evil and mad, a very good actor and could be very charming and charismatic. He managed to charm vin Hindenburg so completely that he signed off everything Hitler asked of him. Goebells' diaries also mention frequently that Hitler often chatted very pleasantly among his close acquaintances and came across as a good listener. I doubt he would have been able to mastermind such a coup of Germany and become so all-powerful without being charming and affable when he needed to be. If only he had been cold and off-putting, people might not have been so enamoured with him.

Stalin at Yalta was in the strongest position of the three (helped by the Cambridge 5 - done my reading now!), and from accounts "appeared reasonable, he was friendly and affable."

May has very little charm.

[Link]

Ha-Joon Chang's thoughts on public spending and taxation.

He's a very well respected Economist and one whose lectures I remember fondly. He talks about being influences by economists from across the spectrum.

Absolutely there will, but you do need to have the ultimate sanction of walking away in your armoury. Going into negotiations with people who, let's be honest, want to shaft us as much as possible as a warning to others, with a starting point of "we are not coming out without a deal" is akin to going into a car showroom with a starting point of "I'm having that car right there, no matter what" and, more importantly, letting them know that's your stance. You'll get a much worse deal than someone who's going to make them work to get a sale.

True colours. Such contempt for those struggling.

Attachment: Screenshot_20170602-110053.png (516.58Kb)