Woah, Tex, that's quite a chip you got on your shoulder there. How you managed to take this personally to such an extent that you attribute words to me which I didn't write is beyond me. Once more: I got nothing against you.
I gave several current era examples of why I believe that the statement "most people become rich not by keeping others down, but by expanding on an idea that makes people's lives better" is not true - if you want more, history books are full of them. I then stated that some of your arguments were not clear enough or even arguments at all and you cleared it up by invoked as an argument the "limits of human nature" in regards to wrongdoings perpetrated on people's expense for profit to which I pointed out that it contradicts the previous statements regarding personal responsibility as it provides a sizable loophole for shedding responsibility.
So where in the above did I personally attack you and brand you an idiot? All I see is a structured progression of a debate, not a personal confrontation. But if I am mistaken and this is a personal confrontation then please by all means let me know and let's not waste our time any longer.
Well, whole globalisation works that way - you have an idea to sell something globally and you have people that manufacture that globally, and for them this means greater income than when they dont manufacture that.
That's just amazing. Brand remembers something that actually didn't happen (it was Labour who coined the phrase). So just to get one (of many) things straight there.
You only think the Guardian makes any sense because you buy up 100% to their agenda, which they do have. Not once in that article does he mention 13 years of Labour rule... because Labour can't have any responsibility for the absolute GIGANTIC cock up they made of pretty much everything.
Anyway, then Brand blames Thatcher, how so predictable.
The contradiction now - On one hand the problem IS political according to Brand
(that's taking the no society quote out of context. Poor writing)
but the solution is not political
So really, this article (which I came across before it was published on the Guardian) makes no sense at all. It goes round in circles and contradicts itself.
It's a shame because often the Guardian can be quite enlightening and provide a different viewpoint, but this article isn't it. It's poorly written and is nothing more than a predictable crowd pleasing load of rubbish. He may as well have just said
i cant figure out whether his views on economics and the world at large or you getting the idea into your head that you can somehow educate him and change his ridiculous carebearish idea of how business works is more naïve
I buy up their agenda because it makes sense to me, I'm sorry but I won't pretend that views which don't make any sense to me do, for anyone's benefit. By the way, it is possible to hold views out of idealism without having some kind of insidious agenda behind them, sadly that doesn't seem to be the fashion in Westminster, either side of the floor.
Cameron may have not explicitly stated he wanted to hug hoodies, but his line on such things was remarkably different when he needed the masses to elect him to how it is now. He was very sympathetic to public sector workers too, now we have Oliver Letwin telling us they need "fear and discipline" amid sweeping job losses. My family know from personal experience that trying to communicate with HM Revenue and Customs is now one of the most frustrating experiences known to man, is that enough evidence to suggest major cuts do not equate to excellence?
You also use the term crowd pleasing in a pejorative fashion, surely the purpose of a democratically elected government is to please the crowd? Of course this would be the case if we actually lived in a democracy, and people weren't tricked so easily into voting against their own interests.
Just for the record, I've grown to despise Labour just as much as I despise the Conservatives. Just another club of public school career twats with different colour ties.
What was the original context then? I can't see how "there is no such thing as society" can be construed in any other way. The gist of it is we shouldn't ask for assistance from anyone and we should help only our families first, at least that's true to conservative values, unfortunately Maggie was too detached from the people she ruled over to realise some people have no way of helping themselves. 24 years later and nothing has changed, the vast majority of a states problems stem the ignorance of its leaders about the population they lead.
By the way, I noticed you have no reply for my last post last night, are you going to concede or justify what you said?
I'm confused about the problem of policing for gun and knife crime in these areas and what's to be done about that. Listening to some of the people in these communities speak over the last few days, it seems that there's a real pressing need for more support in cracking down on violent crime (some feeling that nothing is being done and putting the blame on politicians) but on the other hand there is of course an enormous resentment towards these stop and search programs. So I'm getting a schizophrenic picture about that. Anyone want to dive in here?
alright I'll sum up as best I can, I went too broad and that was my mistake.
You can hate the rich if you like. You can force them to pay even more taxes. But in the end you're only hurting yourself and the economy. Hypothetically, you support a politician who promises to take 1 million dollars more from each wealthy person every year. Sounds great. Most of the ultra wealthy keep 90% or more of their money in investments, it's not like they're sitting on piles of cash. The question you have to ask yourself is: Will that million dollars be spent better by being invested in businesses in say, Silicon Valley, or would the government spend it better on pork barrel pet projects and massive waste?
Also, the ultra rich give away a higher percentage of their money than anyone else. I contend a billionaire funding a vaccination program (Bill Gates) can do it better and more efficiently than a government program attempting the same goal.
It should be noted that when you tax the rich all the money the government picks up is put back into your country. If the wealthy keep their money, they don't necessarily invest in there country. Instead, there money goes overseas to economies that are actually growing.
You're assuming the government can actually say in most cases "We spend $250,000,000 here and it resulted in meeting goals A B and C" This is rarely the case. On the other hand a successful investor must be able to make that statement, being people who actually balance their budgets every year.
The Government: "We spend $250,000,000 here and will continue to do so every year until Green Energy."
... and the UK and USA don't have massive aid budgets or aren't involved in any wars? The UK has to send quite a large amount of money to the EU, IMF etc...
If Governments were better at investing money than citizens then the Soviet Union, along with N Korea and Cuba would be the world's most powerful economies (they are not). Hence why Cuba and N Korea reluctantly have to turn a blind eye to private trade in certain circumstances. China adopted capitalism (though not entirely free-market) and that's worked out pretty good for them.
Cross country trade and investment is essential in a global economy. Protectionism is a bad way to go.
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
So she does say there is a duty to help our neighbour. Within context the quote isn't as point blank as "there's no such thing as society". So to help others, first you must help yourself. She merely said that 'society' is a concept people depend on but it's ignorant to the fact that what your really depending on is individual people and families. Hardly a radical thought. But let's not allow context to get in the way of a good soundbite.
At least Maggie had the balls to say the state DOESN'T have an answer to everything. A politician who openly admitted they don't always have the answer. Maggie was no shrinking violet, but at least she was honest. You knew where you stood, unlike every politician who followed her.
My crowd pleasing comment was squarely aimed at Brand. his article/blog post was aimed at the Guardian. It contained everything you need to please the young naive student audience
1. Blame Thatcher
2. Blame Thatcher
3. Don't mention 13 years of Labour
4. Blame Thatcher
5. Blame Thatcher
Well if the wealthy weren't allowed to be wealthy that million dollars wouldn't exist in the first place...duh You'd get a situation like Venezula where thousands of businesses were shut. Or Britain in the 70s when all the wealthy people fled and the country when open handed to the IMF. You really don't want that.
If yo over tax people hmrc can actually see a reduction in revenues.
Well they did do what all left-wing governments do. Work brilliantly until they run out of other people's natural resources or money.
Actually, when looking at these riots we are only talking about several thousand people here. That means 59,995,000 didn't riot. I guess we can credit Mrs Thatcher's philosophy of personal responsibility for the the majority who didn't wreck their community.
You got balls man. Being in such a recession proof job and your hobby doesn't suck as well, if i've learned one thing, it's not to poke at the average man with a silver handle stick.
