With Europe falling apart financially....

[798686]

What I mean is the left- broadly speaking- seem unable to distinguish between their political viewpoint and the objective outside world.

So lets take state education for example, a rightie expresses the view that all education should be left upto the individual, this is clearly an opinion based upon the libertarian doctrine. A leftie lends support to the status quo and because he's defending the system that's currently in place fails to acknowledge that his opinion is equally as ideological, it's just the way things are in his mind.

Because righties have obviously thought the system through and avoided plumping for established practice they're more aware of their own political bias.

I dunno - I think some people from both sides arrive at their position without fully thinking it through. Possibly some old labour, and traditional hard right conservatives or republicans (including mid-west type conservatism where it's mixed in with religious stance too, a la George Bush, and often unquestioningly accepted from parents/peers, etc).

Obviously you've got people who've weighed up all the arguments and decided what they think is most valid, realistic and achievable - especially in terms of a centre right economic policy, allied with centre left social policy. I personally think the thing that works best in the current climate is a well thought-through centrist stance, with the most workable policies from both sides of the divide.

I think in the UK the parties are blurring slightly, and moving from their traditional stance - at least marginally. Tony Blair and newLabour were all for aspiration, pro-enterprise and public service reform (including questioning long-held givens such as should the NHS be completely free...or a mixture of public and private to boost competition, include modern business practises, in order to improve choice and service, etc). I think they still returned to traditional tax and spend tho in the end and also were too traditionally socialist in terms of big government and over-the-top welfare, but showed signs of seriously reconsidering and re-evaluating long-held positions. The same is true to a certain extent with the conservatives and the new coalition - moving slightly left towwards the centre, and making traditional positions more balanced and moderate (altho, not as much as I expected).

I think you're talking about traditional dyed-in-the-wool left and right, but I feel many people no longer fit into these categories. Also, to dismiss all left-wing progressive people as non-thinking is perhaps a bit extreme - there seem to be equal numbers of non-thinking right-wingers.

 

[798686]

Even Jase admitted that fiscal union would have stopped this crisis from ever happening. Not that I am saying that Jason is cleverer than Gordon :biggrin1:.

Jase for Chancellor! :biggrin1:

You're twisting things a bit tho, Drifts . Fiscal union - integrated euro-area is the only thing that would make the euro work, but...that isnt here yet, so keeping UK from the euro was the right decision at the time (and permanently, imo - but that's a diff matter) because we'd have been hit with the same conditions that were detrimental to Ireland if we'd joined in the 90s or 2000s.

 

[Drifterwood]

Jase for Chancellor! :biggrin1:.

OK - I'm definitely emigrating.

Europe should have said join the Euro or fuck off. Perhaps they should still say that. The Euro needed everyone on board. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[798686]

OK - I'm definitely emigrating.

Europe should have said join the Euro or fuck off. Perhaps they should still say that. The Euro needed everyone on board. United we stand, divided we fall.

I dunno - I'd still prefer to stay out. Yes, woulda worked/might work with fiscal harmonisation...but maybe they're getting to that?

Still wouldn't have worked the way it was, even with the UK - since the one-size-fits-all didnt work with hugely differing economic situations across Europe. I think anyway, lol. :tongue:

 

[Speculator]

I dunno - I think some people from both sides arrive at their position without fully thinking it through. Possibly some old labour, and traditional hard right conservatives or republicans (including mid-west type conservatism where it's mixed in with religious stance too, a la George Bush, and often unquestioningly accepted from parents/peers, etc).

Obviously you've got people who've weighed up all the arguments and decided what they think is most valid, realistic and achievable - especially in terms of a centre right economic policy, allied with centre left social policy. I personally think the thing that works best in the current climate is a well thought-through centrist stance, with the most workable policies from both sides of the divide.

I think in the UK the parties are blurring slightly, and moving from their traditional stance - at least marginally. Tony Blair and newLabour were all for aspiration, pro-enterprise and public service reform (including questioning long-held givens such as should the NHS be completely free...or a mixture of public and private to boost competition, include modern business practises, in order to improve choice and service, etc). I think they still returned to traditional tax and spend tho in the end and also were too traditionally socialist in terms of big government and over-the-top welfare, but showed signs of seriously reconsidering and re-evaluating long-held positions. The same is true to a certain extent with the conservatives and the new coalition - moving slightly left towwards the centre, and making traditional positions more balanced and moderate (altho, not as much as I expected).

I think you're talking about traditional dyed-in-the-wool left and right, but I feel many people no longer fit into these categories. Also, to dismiss all left-wing progressive people as non-thinking is perhaps a bit extreme - there seem to be equal numbers of non-thinking right-wingers.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about:

Most bias takes the form of opinions being presented as fact – a process which is, almost by definition, unconscious. If you begin from the belief that EU membership is vital to Britain’s prosperity – if you regard this as a datum, rather than an arguable proposition – your coverage of the European question is bound to seem biased to the 55 per cent who disagree. They, in turn, will strike you as people who cannot accept objective reality – in other words, as mad.

Confusing opinion with fact is a trait that lefties excude in abundance, which is why posters such maxcok think it's ok to discredit opponents rather than engage with them. It's not that his argument is a crock, no, it's that anyone that disagrees with him must be mentally defective -in his opinion- so there's no point in even discussing the matter.

I've encountered enough activists on the web to realise that leftists have a greater propensity to immediately resort to name calling when faced with a statement they disagree with. It's almost painful to watch sometimes, it clearly causes a lot of mental anguish. I think this is secretly guilt because they know they're wrong, but they can't help but lash out at those that try and help them. Righties though in general are more willing to explain why they think the things they do, this isn't always the case of course but I've seen enough of it to make a judgement that I'm happy with. If you don't believe me go and pick a couple of forums at random, a libertarian one and a socialist one, prevent clear headed counter arguments and see what the response it. I'm prepared to bet a devalued euro that they confirm my hypothesis!

Being left wing is just too easy, it doesn't take a genius to convince others that free education and free healthcare are good things. Then once they're installed it's even more difficult to argue why they should be abolished in favour of a free market system that -shock horror- people have to pay for out of their own pockets. The odds are stacked against the right and this is capitalised on by lazy unthinking socialists.

 

[798686]

Most bias takes the form of opinions being presented as fact – a process which is, almost by definition, unconscious. If you begin from the belief that EU membership is vital to Britain’s prosperity – if you regard this as a datum, rather than an arguable proposition – your coverage of the European question is bound to seem biased to the 55 per cent who disagree. They, in turn, will strike you as people who cannot accept objective reality – in other words, as mad.


Well, I agree with that definition ^^, but I still think it's noticeable on both sides, usual at each end of the spectrum. Haven't been on too many political discussion boards, but on here (imo), the far-right posters are equally as trenchant as the extreme left-wing ones ('libtard' vs. 'wingnut'?).


I do think, obviously, people need to provide evidence for their opinions in order to be taken seriously. Many people on here do that tho (some don't), and imo Max is usually pretty thorough (and a decent guy).


Better stop now tho, I'm just trying to make myself look good, lol.

 

[superbot]

Can we all now admit the USA should NOT be following in their foot steps in any way.

National health care being a prime example....

Even the Dems should be able to see this now.

Oh no that's right...our socialists will be smarter than their socialists and our socialists will find a way to never ever run out of other people's money.

How about the US cutting back on the OBSCENE amounts they spend on both their armourment obession and their vain-glorious space programme.THEN they might be able to give its citizens affordable universal health care.It's about getting ones priorites right don't yer think?!!...

 

[B_talltpaguy]

I am a wealth creator. Rather than being appreciated for the benefits that I have given, I am some sort of rich cunt who has exploited a series of people to create wealth. Ignorant fuckers. What I am not prepared to do is to carry the risks I take just so that a bloated overpaid underperforming state sector can piss my hard work up against the wall, and then come back at me with hatred and demands for more money. Fuck you, I can take my abilities with me and help to create wealth and prosperity for someone else's country and get a fair deal for doing so.

What does your business do exactly? And who do you think it is creating wealth for exactly?

 

[798686]

I am a wealth creator. Rather than being appreciated for the benefits that I have given, I am some sort of rich cunt who has exploited a series of people to create wealth. Ignorant fuckers. What I am not prepared to do is to carry the risks I take just so that a bloated overpaid underperforming state sector can piss my hard work up against the wall, and then come back at me with hatred and demands for more money.

Cash cow. :biggrin1:

Do it for Wales, man. :wink: To be fair...we have had some of the best NHS funding in the UK for the past 15 yrs or so...

 

[midlifebear]

I couldn't possibly agree more!!!


If the rich try pulling that austerity shit here, they're going to wake up to their houses being lit ablaze, and well armed mobs waiting for them to flee.

I've got the matches!:biggrin1:

 

[ReallySmall]

I love this site - even when the topic strays away from penises, everyone still talks cock.

 

[Drifterwood]

What does your business do exactly? And who do you think it is creating wealth for exactly?

Several things, but one of the main ones improves the lives of the customers. My suppliers, my employees, the government, myself.

 

[dandelion]

I'm not a regular hospital goer (never had an op) but have used all three systems: NHS, BUPA/NHS and private, and hand on heart the order I'd rate them is private first, then BUPA/NHS then finally NHS.

Fair enough, the most costly is best the middle priced in the middle and the cheapest last. Actualy, I dont know that I have seen any decent analysis of what the NHS really costs. I have seen comment that the way BUPA etc survive is because they are offering premium service for relatively modest but nonetheless annoying illnesses. The chronic stuff which obviously costs most ends up with the NHS. Many of us end up there dying quite expensively (and I fear miserably), which isnt exactly a great basis for a publicity campaign. But it has to be accomplished. I dont know how cost effectively they manage these expensive matters. I do know that compared to the US it is a much more fairly spread service, and I have not seen real evidence it is worse.

I don't see why we can't have a range of providers pitching their product at different markets depending on income levels,

US model. Rich man gets to live longer because he can pay. Do we really believe that is acceptable?

The sort of banks that were hit hardest weren't speculating in U.S bond debt, they were rather ordinary U.K mortgage banks: Northern Rock, Alliance and Leicester and HBOS.

Northern rock were borrowing short term money and had to keep borrowing it. Their business was making money, but needed continuous finance. When the crisis hit, all finance dried up so they were bust. US banks screwed them, though it has certainly been said that what they did was clearly risky should something like what did happen, happen.

The U.S could have acted like angels over the past decade and we would still have experienced a great banking crash because we allowed our property market to balloon, not to the extent of Ireland's, but big enough to destabilise the financial system.

Well...I would say that particular crash is still waiting to happen. Mr. Brown's juggling act was trying to prevent this, as are the new lot.

I agree - altho...he does seem to have been right on not joining the euro. :tongue:

The policies Brown was following have not been changed by Cameron.

 

[dandelion]

The only way that you can achieve Dandy's view is to lock the door on capable people and make them work for you with no reward.

I believe, 'cometh the hour, cometh the man'. There are plenty of able people here but no reason for them to do something when a vast company already exists smothering all competition. (see speculator, I was paying attention. The issue of existing companies smothering new is not simply a NHS one)

Where I meet with Dandy, though rprobably not for the same reasons, is social justice. But how do you achieve this? Dandy likes the Big State and tax the rich, tax the rich. The problem with this, is simply who are the rich?

I'm a great believer in VAt, which some complain about because it allegedly taxes the poor. I favour getting rid of poverty traps, which means getting rid of means tested benefits. One of the biggest is housing benefit...and you get rid of that by fixing the housing market. If the poor pay 75% tax when they get a pay rise, why shouldn't the rich?

Ironically, people who work for the State have been better paid than the Private sector since 2005 in the UK.

Now thats a good point, much better than waffling about efficiency. This was not part of the original deal, which was poor pay but guaranteed security and then a good pension. The drive to get the private sector into government has become a drive to equate high flyers with civil servants. It is correct that the most sensible way to cut civil service bills would be a pay squeeze.

State politicians have let the multi nationals go, they can operate off shore and are too big for a government to tackle, the government needs the scraps of jobs that they throw their way to pay them off. So you are left with the visible wealthy, who aren't in reality that wealthy. I know self made people who ear $300,000 a year and have nothing left.

Interesting, isn't it. I heard a bit of a debate including one participant who reckoned £30,000 was luxury and another saying they couldnt get by on £40,000. It has more to do with what you are accustomed to than the amount.

They pay 45%+ tax

You mean immediate tax? I'd say the effective tax rate is very high approaching 100% whenyou start to trace what happens to the money when you spend it. (you pay 45%, the guy who gets what you spend pays 45% of that......)

and then the choices they make, nice house, nice cars, private education, ;eave them with nothing

I know. They do a great service to society by showing how awful state education is compared to the private sort they get. A fact dirctly related to the amount of money spent per child.

You can't have it both ways. Either people who add value are rewarded or they go elsewhere.

Yes I can. Reward frequently has little to do with money, which is what we are talking about here. Even simply talking money, if you tax more it means someone has to work more to make whatever amount they reckon is enough. Dont we want to encourgae them? Poor people seem to work pretty hard just to get a tiny amount of money compered to those guys.

This was the very argument that the State has made to overpay the Fat Cats in the Public Sector and there are tens of thousands of them.

Isnt this all part of a drive to get outsiders into the public sector, which has pushed up public sector wages to match industry top levels?

Is this social justice?

No its an obsession that if you pay a private sector individual enough to move into the public sector he will magically make things better. He wont.

I am a wealth creator. Rather than being appreciated for the benefits that I have given, I am some sort of rich cunt who has exploited a series of people to create wealth. Ignorant fuckers. What I am not prepared to do is to carry the risks I take just so that a bloated overpaid underperforming state sector can piss my hard work up against the wall,

There is some evidence that entrepreneurs tend to be people who for one reason or another were outsiders. They are working for their own pleasure. Youre more likely to become a millionaire if you're an orphan! nakes you dissatisfied, i suppose. (though even more likely to become a millionaire if your dad is)

and then come back at me with hatred

Hey, no one hates you!

 

[dandelion]

I love this site - even when the topic strays away from penises, everyone still talks cock.

Balls!

(and thats three in a row. Do i get a bonus?)

 

[ReallySmall]

The great thing about the European crisis is that it's just the trailer being screened before the main event - when states start failing in the USA then things are gonna get reeaaaaallly good.

Blaming socialism seems odd for a contagion that began in the US markets. When it gets back there then boy-oh-boy is it ever game over!

 

[dandelion]

may you live in interesting times.

 

[Jason]

Fair enough, the most costly is best the middle priced in the middle and the cheapest last. Actualy, I dont know that I have seen any decent analysis of what the NHS really costs. I have seen comment that the way BUPA etc survive is because they are offering premium service for relatively modest but nonetheless annoying illnesses. The chronic stuff which obviously costs most ends up with the NHS. Many of us end up there dying quite expensively (and I fear miserably), which isnt exactly a great basis for a publicity campaign. But it has to be accomplished. I dont know how cost effectively they manage these expensive matters. I do know that compared to the US it is a much more fairly spread service, and I have not seen real evidence it is worse..

I took out private health insurance about twelve years ago. I have made no use of it in that time whatsoever :smile: so I don't have direct experience of its quality. I don't have any ailments, don't smoke, I'm a long way off my zimmer frame, I've opted to exclude cover for psychiatric care and long term residential care, and I also use a gym almost every day (and my gym swipe card is linked to my health insurance). In these circumstances - and I know I'm very lucky - PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE IS CHEAP. About £70 a month. Compare the cost of smoking - would this be something like 10 a day? There is something of a UK myth that private health care is something super-expensive which only the rich can afford. True it goes up as you get older. But in the end it is a matter of priorities. I put the private cover pretty high up the spending priority list. In the event of needing long term care I guess my home would be sold.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Several things, but one of the main ones improves the lives of the customers. My suppliers, my employees, the government, myself.

You're not being specific. Do you offer services, do you build things? Trade things from entity to another? What does your company do, that you think it literally 'creates' wealth?

 

[dandelion]

In these circumstances - and I know I'm very lucky - PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE IS CHEAP..

The idea of insurance is you pay a small amount to get reimbursed if something unlikely but expensive happens. You sound like an ideal customer, no claims in 12 years. But i guess they would charge a 70 year old with altzmeimers rather more? er, would refuse to take them on, and anyway, you said, that excluded long term care. As I said, doesnt cover the expensive things. The UK private health business works creaming off healthy customers. Funnily enough, just exactly the opposite of the US, where the healthy people risk not having insurance, the medium pay and the really sick die?