Budget 2016

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Budget 2016

Page 9 of 9 << First < 5 6 7 8 9

jamiemartin721 Reading 21 Mar 16 5.42pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted I'n not a big fan of Osborne (note correct spelling) and think his recent Budget announcement cutting rates of CGT funded by welfare cuts for the disabled is pretty shabby. But compared to any Labour Chancellor, or shadow Chancellor he is head and shoulders ahead of them talentwise. Gusset trumpeted this RBS matter as a Tory failing and I'm not having it - Brown's Gold gaffe was of his own making.. his call, no pressure, big fcuk up. Without this smug and unjust slur upon Osborne I wouldn't have commented at all. Osborne inherited the RBS problem from another Labour fcuk up to bail out a bank that was rotten to the core led by a crook and rather than watch RBS share price fall further as more and more bad news and scandal is uncovered has decided to cut losses. As an ex IFA and experienced investor I can identify with this strategy - I've bailed out on a stock before now - crystallising losses but freeing up the cash to invest in a better stock. Another year of PPI claims, LIBOR fiddling etc, could wipe even more off the share price. Your stock M. O. just seems to be talking bollocks - simple as. And for the record I haven't blamed Corbyn for anything.... his appointment as Labour leader rather pleases me as it ensures a Labour government will be very unlikely to be seen beyond 2020. I think I'm actually being more than fair giving you lefties the heads up about his lack of talent and appeal.... LOL As far as the others you mention, yes I do blame them....... well done Sherlock.... how did you unfathom that? I thought it was my secret strategy! If any of the Chancellors were 'talented' I would expect them to be working in financial institutions making serious money, rather than pursuing a career in politics, on the off chance of becoming an MP, winning a seat and being asked to be Chance of the Exch. That said, I do expect the Conservatives to have a better grip on 'free market' economics than the left wing (New Labour excepted, who a) aren't left wing b) did very well economically speaking until the bastions of Free Markets went and spunked their load). In return, I suspect that many left wingers can also present a far better knowledge of theories of wealth redistribution. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 21 Mar 16 5.42pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

I'n not a big fan of Osborne (note correct spelling) and think his recent Budget announcement cutting rates of CGT funded by welfare cuts for the disabled is pretty shabby. But compared to any Labour Chancellor, or shadow Chancellor he is head and shoulders ahead of them talentwise.

Gusset trumpeted this RBS matter as a Tory failing and I'm not having it - Brown's Gold gaffe was of his own making.. his call, no pressure, big fcuk up. Without this smug and unjust slur upon Osborne I wouldn't have commented at all.

Osborne inherited the RBS problem from another Labour fcuk up to bail out a bank that was rotten to the core led by a crook and rather than watch RBS share price fall further as more and more bad news and scandal is uncovered has decided to cut losses. As an ex IFA and experienced investor I can identify with this strategy - I've bailed out on a stock before now - crystallising losses but freeing up the cash to invest in a better stock. Another year of PPI claims, LIBOR fiddling etc, could wipe even more off the share price.

Your stock M. O. just seems to be talking bollocks - simple as.

And for the record I haven't blamed Corbyn for anything.... his appointment as Labour leader rather pleases me as it ensures a Labour government will be very unlikely to be seen beyond 2020. I think I'm actually being more than fair giving you lefties the heads up about his lack of talent and appeal.... LOL

As far as the others you mention, yes I do blame them....... well done Sherlock.... how did you unfathom that? I thought it was my secret strategy!

If any of the Chancellors were 'talented' I would expect them to be working in financial institutions making serious money, rather than pursuing a career in politics, on the off chance of becoming an MP, winning a seat and being asked to be Chance of the Exch.

That said, I do expect the Conservatives to have a better grip on 'free market' economics than the left wing (New Labour excepted, who a) aren't left wing b) did very well economically speaking until the bastions of Free Markets went and spunked their load). In return, I suspect that many left wingers can also present a far better knowledge of theories of wealth redistribution.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 9.23am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 If any of the Chancellors were 'talented' I would expect them to be working in financial institutions making serious money, rather than pursuing a career in politics, on the off chance of becoming an MP, winning a seat and being asked to be Chance of the Exch. That said, I do expect the Conservatives to have a better grip on 'free market' economics than the left wing (New Labour excepted, who a) aren't left wing b) did very well economically speaking until the bastions of Free Markets went and spunked their load). In return, I suspect that many left wingers can also present a far better knowledge of theories of wealth redistribution. Para 1 - that's how politics used to run jamie. Have a successful career make a bit of money then give a bit back to society by becoming an MP then Lord in the 2nd house. MP's these days are political clones churned out to short circuit the system and get to the House of Lords a lot quicker. Para 2 - Highlighted in red - NO jamie you mean many left wingers that THINK they can present a better knowledge and they talk a good game, based on Keynesian theories they have read about. Ask them for practical solutions with actual details of what they would do tends to shut them up. Ed Balls was a prime example of this type of Lefty Mouthpiece.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 22 Mar 16 9.23am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Para 1 - that's how politics used to run jamie. Have a successful career make a bit of money then give a bit back to society by becoming an MP then Lord in the 2nd house. MP's these days are political clones churned out to short circuit the system and get to the House of Lords a lot quicker.

Para 2 - Highlighted in red - NO jamie you mean many left wingers that THINK they can present a better knowledge and they talk a good game, based on Keynesian theories they have read about. Ask them for practical solutions with actual details of what they would do tends to shut them up. Ed Balls was a prime example of this type of Lefty Mouthpiece.

Alert a moderator to this post

We are goin up! Coulsdon 23 Mar 16 1.24pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Para 1 - that's how politics used to run jamie. Have a successful career make a bit of money then give a bit back to society by becoming an MP then Lord in the 2nd house. MP's these days are political clones churned out to short circuit the system and get to the House of Lords a lot quicker. Para 2 - Highlighted in red - NO jamie you mean many left wingers that THINK they can present a better knowledge and they talk a good game, based on Keynesian theories they have read about. Ask them for practical solutions with actual details of what they would do tends to shut them up. Ed Balls was a prime example of this type of Lefty Mouthpiece. Para 2 is only really relevant if you believe that wealth distribution is important. Most capitalists argue (with merit) that inequality should come second to the actual living standards of the working poor. When left-wingers argue against this it comes across as the "politics of envy" to me. Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution. The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
Alert a moderator to this post

We are goin up!

Coulsdon 23 Mar 16 1.24pm

Send a Private Message to We are goin up!

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

Para 2 is only really relevant if you believe that wealth distribution is important. Most capitalists argue (with merit) that inequality should come second to the actual living standards of the working poor. When left-wingers argue against this it comes across as the "politics of envy" to me.

Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution.

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 23 Mar 16 1.43pm
Originally posted by We are goin up! Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution. I'd confidently presume that the lot of the working poor in Germany, France, Japan and Canada is several notches above that of similar demographic groups in the UK. I've chosen countries of a broadly similar level of development and GDP for a reasonable comparison. The polarisation of wealth in these four places is less pronounced than in the UK. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 23 Mar 16 1.43pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution.

I'd confidently presume that the lot of the working poor in Germany, France, Japan and Canada is several notches above that of similar demographic groups in the UK. I've chosen countries of a broadly similar level of development and GDP for a reasonable comparison.

The polarisation of wealth in these four places is less pronounced than in the UK.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Mar 16 2.24pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Para 1 - that's how politics used to run jamie. Have a successful career make a bit of money then give a bit back to society by becoming an MP then Lord in the 2nd house. MP's these days are political clones churned out to short circuit the system and get to the House of Lords a lot quicker. I think that might be a bit idealised view, and its somewhat undemocratic, but certainly we need more politicians who don't see it as a career, but a calling, in which issues outweigh party allegiance and getting re-elected is the same as being right. Originally posted by Hoof Hearted Para 2 - Highlighted in red - NO jamie you mean many left wingers that THINK they can present a better knowledge and they talk a good game, based on Keynesian theories they have read about. Ask them for practical solutions with actual details of what they would do tends to shut them up. Ed Balls was a prime example of this type of Lefty Mouthpiece. Practical solutions, are only valid, if you're talking in maintaining the status quo, which contradicts the notion of social change. Wealth redistribution cannot occur without upsetting the status quo, and causing change, economic and social impacts, unless its interested in maintaining the existing imbalance. This has been the failure of the Labour Party continually, its belief that you can have a fair distribution of wealth, without impact or changing society. But that's not what I meant. I was talking about the theories of social justice and the critical theories around the difference between wealth, status, power and empowerment, and how these interact. For example, Rawls focus on Wealth distribution has a flawed basis, because it fails to understand that equality isn't purely established by payment of say a disability allowance, it also requires addressing the status, power and self empowerment of the disabled to participate freely in society. This also has been a continual failure of the labour party, the idea that throwing money at a social problem is a resolution. Poverty, for example, isn't resolved just by giving the poor money, you also have to give them the capacity to escape from the social, political and self-identity problems created by poverty. In fact these are far more important, as they are what allow people to escape from poverty without the states intervention. The problem of disability isn't about money, its also about how society incorporates the disabled, values them and how they view themselves in society. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 Mar 16 2.24pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

I think that might be a bit idealised view, and its somewhat undemocratic, but certainly we need more politicians who don't see it as a career, but a calling, in which issues outweigh party allegiance and getting re-elected is the same as being right.

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Para 2 - Highlighted in red - NO jamie you mean many left wingers that THINK they can present a better knowledge and they talk a good game, based on Keynesian theories they have read about. Ask them for practical solutions with actual details of what they would do tends to shut them up. Ed Balls was a prime example of this type of Lefty Mouthpiece.

Practical solutions, are only valid, if you're talking in maintaining the status quo, which contradicts the notion of social change. Wealth redistribution cannot occur without upsetting the status quo, and causing change, economic and social impacts, unless its interested in maintaining the existing imbalance. This has been the failure of the Labour Party continually, its belief that you can have a fair distribution of wealth, without impact or changing society.

But that's not what I meant. I was talking about the theories of social justice and the critical theories around the difference between wealth, status, power and empowerment, and how these interact. For example, Rawls focus on Wealth distribution has a flawed basis, because it fails to understand that equality isn't purely established by payment of say a disability allowance, it also requires addressing the status, power and self empowerment of the disabled to participate freely in society.

This also has been a continual failure of the labour party, the idea that throwing money at a social problem is a resolution. Poverty, for example, isn't resolved just by giving the poor money, you also have to give them the capacity to escape from the social, political and self-identity problems created by poverty. In fact these are far more important, as they are what allow people to escape from poverty without the states intervention.

The problem of disability isn't about money, its also about how society incorporates the disabled, values them and how they view themselves in society.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Mar 16 2.37pm
Originally posted by We are goin up! Para 2 is only really relevant if you believe that wealth distribution is important. Most capitalists argue (with merit) that inequality should come second to the actual living standards of the working poor. When left-wingers argue against this it comes across as the "politics of envy" to me. Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution. I disagree to an extent, but I also agree that wealth distribution is a symptom of problem. In the first world, wealth is very deterministic of how your life will work out, especially at the lower end of the scale. Making the poor rich won't solve all their problems. I think even Marx saw that it was about empowering the working classes to become capable of determining their own destiny, rather than it being determined by the ownership of production by another who's interests are divergent from those of the workers (ie Status, Power and Self Empowerment). Some people, giving them 'money' will just make their suffering greater, because they lack a capacity of functionality to prosper and use wealth as a means to self empowerment (the classic 'money doesn't buy you class'). However the issue is poverty, and poverty is not just about money, but the way poverty inhibits chance and opportunity, as well as spawning and creating social problems that blight those around them. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 Mar 16 2.37pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution.

I disagree to an extent, but I also agree that wealth distribution is a symptom of problem. In the first world, wealth is very deterministic of how your life will work out, especially at the lower end of the scale.

Making the poor rich won't solve all their problems. I think even Marx saw that it was about empowering the working classes to become capable of determining their own destiny, rather than it being determined by the ownership of production by another who's interests are divergent from those of the workers (ie Status, Power and Self Empowerment).

Some people, giving them 'money' will just make their suffering greater, because they lack a capacity of functionality to prosper and use wealth as a means to self empowerment (the classic 'money doesn't buy you class').

However the issue is poverty, and poverty is not just about money, but the way poverty inhibits chance and opportunity, as well as spawning and creating social problems that blight those around them.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Mar 16 2.37pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I disagree to an extent, but I also agree that wealth distribution is a symptom of problem. In the first world, wealth is very deterministic of how your life will work out, especially at the lower end of the scale. Making the poor rich won't solve all their problems. I think even Marx saw that it was about empowering the working classes to become capable of determining their own destiny, rather than it being determined by the ownership of production by another who's interests are divergent from those of the workers (ie Status, Power and Self Empowerment). Some people, giving them 'money' will just make their suffering greater, because they lack a capacity of functionality to prosper and use wealth as a means to self empowerment (the classic 'money doesn't buy you class'). However the issue is poverty, and poverty is not just about money, but the way poverty inhibits chance and opportunity, as well as spawning and creating social problems that blight those around them. Actually the bits about Marx, probably better describe Webber. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 Mar 16 2.37pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

However the issue is poverty, and poverty is not just about money, but the way poverty inhibits chance and opportunity, as well as spawning and creating social problems that blight those around them.

Actually the bits about Marx, probably better describe Webber.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 23 Mar 16 3.29pm
Originally posted by We are goin up! Para 2 is only really relevant if you believe that wealth distribution is important. Most capitalists argue (with merit) that inequality should come second to the actual living standards of the working poor. When left-wingers argue against this it comes across as the "politics of envy" to me. Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution. Yeah Mes Thatcher in parliament talking about lefties wanting the gap closed rather than both rich and poor better off than they both would be with the gap closing. I'm not so sure. Having divides in society widening isn't healthy and at some point the positives of this drop off and I'd imagine it's hard to reverse having put the rich in such a strong position. But having said that the middle have been shafted quite a lot as well. Being moderately successful got you a lot further than it does now. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 23 Mar 16 3.29pm

Originally posted by We are goin up!

Living standards for the poor are (on the whole) better in countries with less wealth distribution.

Yeah Mes Thatcher in parliament talking about lefties wanting the gap closed rather than both rich and poor better off than they both would be with the gap closing.

I'm not so sure. Having divides in society widening isn't healthy and at some point the positives of this drop off and I'd imagine it's hard to reverse having put the rich in such a strong position.

But having said that the middle have been shafted quite a lot as well. Being moderately successful got you a lot further than it does now.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Mar 16 3.33pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Yeah Mes Thatcher in parliament talking about lefties wanting the gap closed rather than both rich and poor better off than they both would be with the gap closing. I'm not so sure. Having divides in society widening isn't healthy and at some point the positives of this drop off and I'd imagine it's hard to reverse having put the rich in such a strong position. But having said that the middle have been shafted quite a lot as well. Being moderately successful got you a lot further than it does now. Its the disparity that's the problem. The vast difference between the bottom 80% and the top 5% is quite staggering, even actually he disparity between the 15% and the top 5%). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 23 Mar 16 3.33pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Yeah Mes Thatcher in parliament talking about lefties wanting the gap closed rather than both rich and poor better off than they both would be with the gap closing.

I'm not so sure. Having divides in society widening isn't healthy and at some point the positives of this drop off and I'd imagine it's hard to reverse having put the rich in such a strong position.

But having said that the middle have been shafted quite a lot as well. Being moderately successful got you a lot further than it does now.

Its the disparity that's the problem. The vast difference between the bottom 80% and the top 5% is quite staggering, even actually he disparity between the 15% and the top 5%).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 9 of 9 << First < 5 6 7 8 9

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Budget 2016

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors