Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 OldFella  London 14 Aug 15 10.38am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote DanH at 14 Aug 2015 9.53am
Straw poll: If it meant Blair getting tried for war crimes at the Hague would you vote for Corbyn for PM? For sure!
Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it.. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Johnny Eagles  berlin 14 Aug 15 10.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 14 Aug 15 11.10am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 11.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 14 Aug 15 11.24am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.
You'd all be in heaven not having to worry about decision making and eating bland soup!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Aug 15 11.29am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.02am
Racist. Racist.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Aug 15 11.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am Quote
Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people. People dying, suffer, enslaved and being oppressed / restricted, in the name of greater profit, is a problem of capitalism. When you have kids sowing Disney toys for a pittance or shoes, that are then sold for a mark up of 400% in the west, and those kids are living in poverty without education, you have a problem of capitalism. Especially when that company will influence that countrys politicians, to favour their business interests, you have a problem. We would never accept those conditions in this country as legal. But in truth, we turn a blind eye, if its a world away. Just like we did in the Victorian age, when the poverty and exploitation and suffering was here.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.24am
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.
You'd all be in heaven not having to worry about decision making and eating bland soup!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 14 Aug 15 11.39am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.35am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.24am
Quote nickgusset at 14 Aug 2015 11.19am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 11.10am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Aug 2015 10.13am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.03am
If you include people acting within a market economy then you could include most of the socialist countries. I'm not sure its true on a global scale either that people in sweatshops etc are empowered by stitching trainers or Disney toys, esp when they are children who instead of being schooled are producing goods. Nor those empowered by an inability to afford HIV medication, or those dying of preventable disease, unclean drinking water or suffering from malnutirion. When you step outside the first world, capitalism isn't empowering people so much as enslaving them. The generation of wealth for its own sake, is a problem. Captialism needs regulation and control so that it serves the interests of everyone involved, otherwise it creates unrest, dissatisfaction, insurrection and tyranny. Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition. What does "capitalism needs regulation and control" mean? You need the state for all kinds of stuff but it shouldn't be running the economy. And where it does so - and this was matt_himself's point - it tends to impoverish rather than empower people.
1. Oh Corbyn will be a disaster, Well go back to the 70's. - is there any evidence for this or is it lazy conjecture. 2. Oh you're a lefty? You must want to live in North Korea as you agree with totalitarianism.
You'd all be in heaven not having to worry about decision making and eating bland soup!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Aug 15 11.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.
The very fact that state regulation of the banking sector was heavily relaxed led to a disaster that still threatens the world even now. Capitalism without regulation 'eats itself'.....That is recognised by many economists. Pure self interest ends up drawing up the very ladder that supports itself. The state doesn't need to run the economy as such.....But it definitely needs to assert the rules by which it can operate......And punish actions that endanger it. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Aug 2015 11.43am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Aug 15 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Personally I'm hoping Labour vote in Corbyn. The biggest single reason why is just to stick it to all those posh Blairites in Labour who believe that they have a divine right to run the party. They warm word their membership while treating them with contempt. They have had their run.....Let Labour be Labour....Even if I think some of the policies are batty.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 14 Aug 15 11.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Aug 2015 11.42am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 Aug 2015 10.53am
Oh please. We're all against war, poverty and injustice. That is not an anti-capitalist position. Monopoly, oligopoly, corruption, price-fixing, cartels, graft, kleptocracy, these are a bigger cause of the stuff you mention than capitalism. That and, say, trade barriers erected by the likes of, er, the European Union which likes to protect its comfortable left-wing middle class from genuine competition.
The very fact that state regulation of the banking sector was heavily relaxed led to a disaster that still threatens the world even now. Capitalism without regulation 'eats itself'.....That is recognised by many economists. Pure self interest ends up drawing up the very ladder that supports itself. The state doesn't need to run the economy as such.....But it definitely needs to assert the rules by which it can operate......And punish actions that endanger it. What worked out well in 2008? The pre-2008 'heavily relaxed' financial regulation is not a good example of a free market. Governments were in the financial crisis up to their eyeballs. Who encouraged home-ownership among people who couldn't afford mortgages? Who guaranteed deposits up to a hundred grand? Out of the "heads we win, tails you lose" bets made by big banks, who fulfilled the "tails you lose" bit? "Pure self-interest" can either support the market economy (cf. Adam Smith) or it can work against it (eg, price-fixing and monopolies). Capitalism, defined as "people interacting in a market economy" does not "eat itself". It's greed, corruption and graft that eats up all the good stuff. The alternative, a planned economy, tends to encourage those things to the detriment of everyone.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.