Jump to content

economic situation is dire


ianrobo1
 Share

Recommended Posts

could Carlos Tevezs wages buy in a year...?

are you seriously trying to pin that on the Tory party :shock:

but seeing as you blamed the banks you do know Brown let a deregulated City rip, then used the tax revenues to fund a dramatic expansion of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to think of a reasoned argument to that post, something along the lines of 10m people are SCUM, does that include teachers, doctors who voted Tory but I think Wow is better

Are you trying to sat that a significant amount of people who vote Tory are in the public sector....! I think not.

Of course there may be a few Daily Mail readers who are teachers and doctors who vote Tory but I would not class the majority of Torie Voters as being in the public sector...!

I would take the Scum with a pinch of salt - I just thought it rhymed well....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
And we would not want Socialism would We...?

No, no we wouldn't. Seriously, no. Just, no.

Its not as if the country is completely owned by the the global co operative industry...?

Mmm, not really no.

Its not as if 99% of the country have been SCREWED left right and center by the banks and cooperates..?

It isn't THAT bad. Where do you think the country would be without banks and/or global capitalism?

Cuts to the elderly, young, vulnerable families, privatization of the NHS, Pension schemes increase, university fees increase. Yet the bankers are getting million of ££££ in bonuses for loosing thousands of people like savings.Yes we truly do live in a democracy...!

Yes. That is unfair. Very unfair, absolutely. But you still need banks. And you probably still need to make cuts in quite a few services to balance the budget. The British people are hardly suffering (if we compare Britain to pretty much any other country), even if times are a bit tough, and even if you were it would hardly be because bankers made so-or-so many millions of pounds in bonuses. It's unfair, but it doesn't really make a big difference.

How many Nurses, teachers, Doctors could Carlos Tevezs wages buy in a year...?

Not enough to make a very big difference. Though, let's turn the rhetoric around: Assuming he does pay his taxes, how many nurses, teachers and doctors do you think Carlos Tevez' taxes pay for a year? I'm not saying wages for football players are fair, I'm certainly not saying Carlos Tevez should pay less tax. I'm just saying Carlos Tevez' wages aren't really that interesting and making footballers earn less wouldn't make a very big difference.

Thank goodness this country is doing well and there is fairness and equality for all.....!!!!????

Well, things could be a lot worse after all. Times are tough, but Britain is still a decent place to live.

UP YOUR BUM YOU TORY SCUM...!

I know this wasn't aimed at me at all, and I'm certainly not a tory. But seeing as I hate partisan politics of any colour, I'll provide a bit of balance for you: take a chill-pill, you marxist maniac!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could Carlos Tevezs wages buy in a year...?

are you seriously trying to pin that on the Tory party :shock:

but seeing as you blamed the banks you do know Brown let a deregulated City rip, then used the tax revenues to fund a dramatic expansion of the state.

Oh that old chesnut - And did you know that the Tories would have done exactly the same as they committed themselves to Labours spending up untill 2010.

And there we have it - you have solved it....?! So it was Gordon Brown who who caused the Global recession in Amercia, China, Italy Greece Spain and Ireland and has currently caused the Euro zone crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't THAT bad. Where do you think the country would be without banks and/or global capitalism?

It is THAT bad. It may not have hit Scandinavia yet (and from those whom I speak to there it would seem not) but it is.

Yes. That is unfair. Very unfair, absolutely. But you still need banks. And you probably still need to make cuts in quite a few services to balance the budget. The British people are hardly suffering (if we compare Britain to pretty much any other country), even if times are a bit tough, and even if you were it would hardly be because bankers made so-or-so many millions of pounds in bonuses. It's unfair, but it doesn't really make a big difference.

You may want banks - to do normal transactional banking type things...

The rest, Mich, is statistical nonsense.

It's 'suffering' on a spreadsheet. It's cobblers, nonsense, idiocy - comparing people's eating habits to starving millions in the Sudan. It's foolish nonsense that is the basis of supporting the system as is.

Times are tough, but Britain is still a decent place to live.

Try living here - at the bottom. You wouldn't make the kind of glib comments that you have.

...take a chill-pill, you marxist maniac!

He's not a marxist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
It is THAT bad. It may not have hit Scandinavia yet (and from those whom I speak to there it would seem not) but it is.

So 99 per cent of the UK population are screwed? Yikes, things have really derailed drastically since I last visited in March.

You may want banks - to do normal transactional banking type things...

You may just want your banks to do a little more than that. That is not to say, by any means, that better (not necessarily more) regulation of the bank industry is needed.

The rest, Mich, is statistical nonsense.

It's 'suffering' on a spreadsheet. It's cobblers, nonsense, idiocy - comparing people's eating habits to starving millions in the Sudan. It's foolish nonsense that is the basis of supporting the system as is.

Yet the British people on avarage, compared to just about any other nation in the world, are quite well off. I'm not trying to say that times aren't tough and that there aren't anyone who are suffering. There are too many people suffering in any country, in Scandinavia too. Too many people were suffering even before the crisis. Still, and that was the point I was trying to make with my all of my comments, the predominant economic system of our part of the world has facilitated a standard of living that is head and shoulders above the rest.

Try living here - at the bottom. You wouldn't make the kind of glib comments that you have.

Do you think the people at the bottom in Norway have it any better than people at the bottom in Britain? There may be more people at the bottom in Britain than there are in Norway but those who are suffer just as much. The bottom isn't necessarily a valid indicator of the general standard of living, though, and I would say that even in Britain the vast majority live relatively decent lives. There are arguments to made that too many people are not included in that majority, and I'd agree. I apologise if my comments were in any way insensitive towards those who actually do suffer. I'm certainly aware they exist and that they are too many. But that doesn't make Britain a horrible place. And scrapping capitalism for socialism certainly wouldn't make the general standard of living any higher.

He's not a marxist

But he's still a maniac? :winkold:

I don't really think he's either, btw. Just as I don't think people are scum just because they vote Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Whos says I am a marxist I agree with capitalism - there goes you theory..! No where near as witty as my ending no rhymes....!

Well, if you want socialism you don't agree with capitalism.

Ah, but my ending had alliteration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Great definitive answer well explained. You have to understand what Socialism is before first.

Strictly speaking socialism means collective ownership of the means of production. I don't think that's a very good idea. You could "play nice" and say socialism is the minimalisation of financial inequality through overwhelming state intervention but I still don't think it would be a very good idea. Allowing for inequality is essential for a dynamic society.

Another Stirling answer backed up with credible answers...!

Who are the first people that the politicians have meetings with before any political campaign.

Well, Ed Milliband probably meets with trade unions first. That doesn't mean they OWN the country. It means they have too much influence in political decisions. The same is probably true for big business interests.

Where have you been the last three years - try doing some research on norther rock. Can you tell me the money their directors earn.

I know they make a lot of money. You can tax them 100 per cent and you'd still have to make cuts in services to balance the budget.

Did I say you don't need banks...?! Do I believe in capitalism - yes absolutely but not to the point that it is today no way.

We don't just need banks though. We need the banking industry. And we need the banking industry to be able to take risks and we need them to have incentives. Regulations should be better but we shouldn't choke the banking industry in our quest for better regulation.

If you believe in capitalism you don't want socialism.

You have missed the point - no one should earn that money

Why not? It may be mad but what are we going to do about it?

Descent place to live for who

Britain is still a decent place to live for a healthy majority of its inhabitants.

Its a good thing we live in a fair world where footballers get paid millions.... oh wait....!

What has that got to do with unemployment and tuition fees? You may not think it's fair and I'd probably agree but again what are you going to do about it? Propose a "footballers tax"?

Whos says I am a marxist

Who says tories are scum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is THAT bad. It may not have hit Scandinavia yet (and from those whom I speak to there it would seem not) but it is.

So 99 per cent of the UK population are screwed? Yikes, things have really derailed drastically since I last visited in March.

The point is a lot of people...!

You may want banks - to do normal transactional banking type things...

You may just want your banks to do a little more than that. That is not to say, by any means, that better (not necessarily more) regulation of the bank industry is needed.

The rest, Mich, is statistical nonsense.

It's 'suffering' on a spreadsheet. It's cobblers, nonsense, idiocy - comparing people's eating habits to starving millions in the Sudan. It's foolish nonsense that is the basis of supporting the system as is.

Yet the British people on avarage, compared to just about any other nation in the world, are quite well off. I'm not trying to say that times aren't tough and that there aren't anyone who are suffering. There are too many people suffering in any country, in Scandinavia too. Too many people were suffering even before the crisis. Still, and that was the point I was trying to make with my all of my comments, the predominant economic system of our part of the world has facilitated a standard of living that is head and shoulders above the rest.

For who...?

Try living here - at the bottom. You wouldn't make the kind of glib comments that you have.

Do you think the people at the bottom in Norway have it any better than people at the bottom in Britain? There may be more people at the bottom in Britain than there are in Norway but those who are suffer just as much. The bottom isn't necessarily a valid indicator of the general standard of living, though, and I would say that even in Britain the vast majority live relatively decent lives. There are arguments to made that too many people are not included in that majority, and I'd agree. I apologise if my comments were in any way insensitive towards those who actually do suffer. I'm certainly aware they exist and that they are too many. But that doesn't make Britain a horrible place. And scrapping capitalism for socialism certainly wouldn't make the general standard of living any higher.

Take a look at Sweeden.

He's not a marxist

But he's still a maniac? :winkold:

hold tight...!

I don't really think he's either, btw. Just as I don't think people are scum just because they vote Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great definitive answer well explained. You have to understand what Socialism is before first.

. Allowing for inequality is essential for a dynamic society.

Another Stirling answer backed up with credible answers...!

Who are the first people that the politicians have meetings with before any political campaign.

Well, Ed Milliband probably meets with trade unions first. That doesn't mean they OWN the country. It means they have too much influence in political decisions. The same is probably true for big business interests.

But he does not meet with the banks first thats the differnce.

Where have you been the last three years - try doing some research on norther rock. Can you tell me the money their directors earn.

I know they make a lot of money. You can tax them 100 per cent and you'd still have to make cuts in services to balance the budget.

Make Cuts - says who..? Take a look at britains book after the second world war and compare them to now.

Did I say you don't need banks...?! Do I believe in capitalism - yes absolutely but not to the point that it is today no way.

We don't just need banks though. We need the banking industry. And we need the banking industry to be able to take risks and we need them to have incentives. Regulations should be better but we shouldn't choke the banking industry in our quest for better regulation.

If you believe in capitalism you don't want socialism.

Where Did I say I was a Socialist.

You have missed the point - no one should earn that money

Why not? It may be mad but what are we going to do about it?

Why not - that sums it up nicely...?

Descent place to live for who

Britain is still a decent place to live for a healthy majority of its inhabitants.

Its a good thing we live in a fair world where footballers get paid millions.... oh wait....!

What has that got to do with unemployment and tuition fees? You may not think it's fair and I'd probably agree but again what are you going to do about it? Propose a "footballers tax"?

Its got a lot to do with the big picture.

Whos says I am a marxist

Who says tories are scum?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Lots of people think that Torries are Scum if you live in liverpool, wales scotland and lots of places in England.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
The point is a lot of people...!

Yes, too many. Not all. Not most.

For who...?

For most. Almost all.

Take a look at Sweeden.

Ah, my dear Swedish neighbours. An example of a socialist country they are not. Their economy is pretty much just as market based as Britain's. Their centre/right government has done a pretty good job at handling the crisis though. Almost as good a job as Norway's centre-left government has done, despite Sweden's lack of rediculously high oil revenues. Kudos to them, the conservative scum :winkold:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It is THAT bad. It may not have hit Scandinavia yet (and from those whom I speak to there it would seem not) but it is.

So 99 per cent of the UK population are screwed?

Pretty much yes.

I would say all of us. I don't know how I ought to classify those at the top who aren't.

You may want banks - to do normal transactional banking type things...

You may just want your banks to do a little more than that.

No, I don't. I don't want my banks to be usurers.

It's guff. It;'s guff that makes a lot of people rich, I'll grant you - it's still guff. It may drag people along too - for as long as it's good.

The rest, Mich, is statistical nonsense.

It's 'suffering' on a spreadsheet. It's cobblers, nonsense, idiocy - comparing people's eating habits to starving millions in the Sudan. It's foolish nonsense that is the basis of supporting the system as is.

People don't live 'on average' or as statistical deviations.

Though 'on the whole' most people may x, that requires some (or a lot) of peolple to live without x, y z or any other statistical, academic piece of utter shitspeak.

'Compared to just about any other nation...' - are those nations starving nations by any chance? Are they other nations that are also **** up?

Your comments are the equivalent of the matron telling a child to eat up because there are starving people who would be grateful of their parsnips.

Try living here - at the bottom. You wouldn't make the kind of glib comments that you have.

Do you think the people at the bottom in Norway have it any better than people at the bottom in Britain? There may be more people at the bottom in Britain than there are in Norway but those who are suffer just as much. The bottom isn't necessarily a valid indicator of the general standard of living, though...

Of course it isn't and I very much doubt I have suggested that.

and I would say that even in Britain the vast majority live relatively decent lives.

They may well do - a lot don't.

I apologise if my comments were in any way insensitive towards those who actually do suffer

Your comments appear to marginalize (whether intentionally or not) the large number of people who do struggle in this apparently first world economy (again try living in it) and your comments, as suggested above, seem to fall in to the category of the comfortable middle class who tell the poor that they ought to be grateful because they aren't as poor as they could be.

Your comments are a feudalistic sop - a pseudo-acedemic doffing of a cap to the 'masters of our universe'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â