Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[idleidolidyll]

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.

Oh my gawd! Ignorance surely is bliss!

socialism is a social/economic theory somewhere between capitalism and communism. It uses parts of both to achieve a working solution.

Pure capitalism (monarchies etc) are about self and greed, pure communism is about suborning self into society.

The MIDDLE way is socialism. Sure, there are degrees of socialism but there can never be a pure socialist state, the very idea is hilarious. There can only be socialist policies.

As for the post above yours, I'm still laughing!
The amount of propaganda in the west over the definition of socialism is utterly hilarious! Even more hilarious is that suckers are born every day and so many believe that bullshit.

It seems a lot of people don't have access to dictionaries or encyclopedia and they therefore argue from a point of ignorance rather than a point of knowledge.

Someone pick me up, I just fell on the floor laughing!

[idleidolidyll]

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.

oops, that'd be the post 2 above yours; what a dippy piece of ignorant propaganda

[idleidolidyll]

In its most pure form, it may have some minor flaws, however please name 1 country where socialism works on all levels... This outta be good.

faced with a conundrum, finn runs away crying wolf

ROTFLMFAO!

[davereid]

Originally Posted by davereid
What absolute rubbish !

Firstly, your comment that your wages have dropped in real terms is true. But capitalisim is not to blame, socialisim is.

bollocks, Douglas was a fraud in labour and his formation of the right wing ACT party is all the proof needed. You seem easily fooled by the words people assign to themselves. If I tell you I'm your King will you bow down at my knee?
RIGHT wing policies put in place by Roger Douglas as well as National Govts which followed that fake Labour Party are to blame for most of the drop in income.
They sold us out.

The ONLY way you get a higher income is by producing more. And there is no doubt that capitalist systems are better at producing that communist or socialist systems.

Oh but there IS doubt. The amount of waste in capitalism is massive and the way that capitalism ignores the negative effects of its policies in order to justify their supposed efficiency is a joke (pollution, human abuse, slaughter, reductions in free time etc)

2. You are confused about capitalisim and tyranny. Capitalists, socialists, communists, just anyone is capable of tyranny.

No I'm not. I've already spoken here about the problems with fascism (as per Hitler, Bush and Stalin). However, I have no confusion at all: capitalism is a system that places power in the handsa of the few (Capitalists) while socialism places power in the hands of the many (Citizens).
If capitalism and capitalists had their way, there would be no democracy. Successive Yank and Brit govts supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Pinochet emphasise that point.

The Kings of old liked their wealth - but they were not capitalists.

Of course they were, they were the pinnacle of capitalism and corporates drool at the power they had.

They took land using force and made the inhabitants of that land their subjects.

Sounds just like the USA all over the globe with it's bullshit wars and it's perpetual lies: killing for resources is the same thing.

They made themselves and their supporters rich by imposing taxes, on wine, on barley etc etc. This sounds like what exactly ? Willing buyer - willing seller, negotiated price?

What has capitalism got to do with willing anything? The Oxford dictionary say it's about Capitalists controlling the means of production (power).

It was liberalism and socialist ideals that resulted in democracy.


Nope it sounds like communisim and socalisim!
[/COLOR]

No. You simply don't understand the basics. I don't really care what the Oxford dictionary says about capitalisim.

Of course there will always be those who want control above all else. Some will be capitalist. But control of resources is NOT a caplitalist issue, it happens regardless.

Capitalisim is simple. Its a willing buyer, and a willing seller, who negotiate and reach agreement. No force. No government, no coercion.

Clear your mind. Go back in time. How did it start ?

Well, most likely there was a community. One guy grew grain. Another farmed sheep. There was most likely a pretty girl who traded too. The guy who made the bread from the grain sold some of his grain to the guy who made beer. He traded beer with the prositute. CAPITALISIM had arrived.

But one day, a guy with a sword arrived. He announced that he was the king, your new government. He became very rich, and through taxation so did his mates. But he wasn't a capitalist.

He was just a cunt.

He ended freedom, free trade, and by his distribution of wealth to those he decided were worthy, he became the fisrt socialist.

Thats the difference. Capitalisim = willing buyer, willing seller. No Oxford dictionary required to redefine it as somehing else. Socialism = government. tax, force, compulsion, violence.

[Winston001]

The MIDDLE way is socialism. Sure, there are degrees of socialism but there can never be a pure socialist state, the very idea is hilarious. There can only be socialist policies.


Umm..... you still haven't answered Finn's question.

And not to be unkind - because I admire your enthusiasm - but isn't it rather shooting yourself in the foot to say that pure socialism is laughable? :spanking: Unfortunately that's exactly what others are saying.....



It seems a lot of people don't have access to dictionaries or encyclopedia and they therefore argue from a point of ignorance rather than a point of knowledge.

Someone pick me up, I just fell on the floor laughing!I don't think it is useful to argue dictionary definitions. These are political and economic philosophies we are discussing and everyone who cares enough to post has some knowledge of the real world impact of these ideas.

[davereid]

capitalism is a system that places power in the handsa of the few (Capitalists) while socialism places power in the hands of the many (Citizens).
If capitalism and capitalists had their way, there would be no democracy. Successive Yank and Brit govts supporting dictatorships like Suharto and Pinochet emphasise that point.
The Oxford dictionary say it's about Capitalists controlling the means of production (power).
It was liberalism and socialist ideals that resulted in democracy.
[/COLOR]

No. You simply don't understand the basics. I don't really care what the Oxford dictionary says about capitalisim.

Of course there will always be those who want control above all else. Some will be capitalist. But control of resources is NOT a caplitalist issue, it happens regardless.

Capitalisim is simple. Its a willing buyer, and a willing seller, who negotiate and reach agreement. No force. No government, no coercion.

Clear your mind. Go back in time. How did it start ?

Well, most likely there was a community. One guy grew grain. Another farmed sheep. There was most likely a pretty girl who traded too. The guy who made the bread from the grain sold some of his grain to the guy who made beer. He traded beer with the prositute. CAPITALISIM had arrived.

But one day, a guy with a sword arrived. He announced that he was the king, your new government.

He became very rich, and through taxation so did his mates.

But he wasn't a capitalist.

He was just a cunt.

He ended freedom, free trade, and by his distribution of wealth to those he decided were worthy, he became the first socialist.

Thats the difference. Capitalisim = willing buyer, willing seller. No Oxford dictionary required to redefine it as somehing else. Socialism = government. tax, force, compulsion, violence.

[Robert Taylor]

faced with a conundrum, finn runs away crying wolf

ROTFLMFAO!

And the last word goes to.....and the game of one upmanship goes to?

Just been reminded yet again that hard core socialists always think they are so right.

Power hungry socialists are just as corrupt as the worst excesses of unchecked capitalism and / or facism. It is very much in evidence here in NZ.

[idleidolidyll]

Umm..... you still haven't answered Finn's question.

Why would I bother? Finns 'question' was a silly evasion of my question.

And not to be unkind - because I admire your enthusiasm - but isn't it rather shooting yourself in the foot to say that pure socialism is laughable?

Nope, that's called honesty and those who actually understand the philosophy behind the names will also understand why it's silly.

:spanking: Unfortunately that's exactly what others are saying.....

I don't think it is useful to argue dictionary definitions. These are political and economic philosophies we are discussing and everyone who cares enough to post has some knowledge of the real world impact of these ideas.

Of course it's useful to offer REAL definitions. A HUGE part of the problem with this debate is the ignorance of a few and the ease at which many are suckered by right wing propaganda.

No, people might care but so many are just plain ignorant (and that's a fact not an attack)

[idleidolidyll]

No. You simply don't understand the basics. I don't really care what the Oxford dictionary says about capitalisim.

Of course there will always be those who want control above all else. Some will be capitalist. But control of resources is NOT a caplitalist issue, it happens regardless.

duh! it's the CORE issue!

Capitalisim is simple. Its a willing buyer, and a willing seller, who negotiate and reach agreement. No force. No government, no coercion.

I understand the vall too well; capitalism is an economic system in which control of the means of production is in the hands of those with the money. In that system, it is they who dictate to all others what they can buy, how much it will cost, as well as how they will live their lives given that the pure form of capitalism invests absolute power in the capitalists. It is nothing less than a return to serfdom.

Clear your mind. Go back in time. How did it start ?

Well, most likely there was a community. One guy grew grain. Another farmed sheep. There was most likely a pretty girl who traded too. The guy who made the bread from the grain sold some of his grain to the guy who made beer. He traded beer with the prositute. CAPITALISIM had arrived.


But one day, a guy with a sword arrived. He announced that he was the king, your new government.

He became very rich, and through taxation so did his mates.

But he wasn't a capitalist.

He was just a cunt.

He ended freedom, free trade, and by his distribution of wealth to those he decided were worthy, he became the first socialist.

Here's a better analysis:
A long time ago groups of people were for the most part related and they by and large supported each other. However, with the advent of communities, some managed to corner a product or idea and use it to gain advantage and control over others (religion fits that bill nicely). Once they had tasted power they lusted for more and the capitalist system, relying on and rewarding greed, was the very system to give it to them.

Much later, after centuries of servitude, the people had had enough and decided to kick out the capitalists and give power to the people (thanks Oliver Cromwell etc). Taking that power was a long slow process but it developed into full blown democracy: a perfect socialist concept.

Thats the difference. Capitalisim = willing buyer, willing seller. No Oxford dictionary required to redefine it as somehing else. Socialism = government. tax, force, compulsion, violence.

ROTFLMFAO!! Hilarious indeed, you throw out the very definition of capitalism and then think I'm interested in your silly arguments?

[idleidolidyll]

And the last word goes to.....and the game of one upmanship goes to?

Just been reminded yet again that hard core socialists always think they are so right.

Power hungry socialists are just as corrupt as the worst excesses of unchecked capitalism and / or facism. It is very much in evidence here in NZ.

by definition, the power hungry are authoritarians and in extremis are fascists.

That describes your favourite model to a tee: Amerikkka

Helen has a looonnngggg way to go before she becomes as corrupt as most yank politicians

BTW: did you miss the bit where i said clearly that i don't support Labour?

slap! wake up Robert

[davereid]

Nope - once again you confuse tyanny with capitalisim.

I have pointed it out over and over, but you no hear.

Anyone can be a tyrant.

It has NO relationship to your political or religious opinion. A tyrant is simply someone who thinks they have the right to use force to get things done their way.

To be reminded - a world of willing buyer, willing seller needs no force. You pay for the services you want, you don't buy those you don't want, and you reach agreement on the terms, or the deal falls through.

The use of force to control resources, income, and people is different. Capitalists want to do it. And thats not good, it just reflects human nature. But its not required for capitalisim to work.

On the other hand Socialists HAVE to do it. Because socialisim is not about freedom Its about force. Its about compulsion. It's about doing as you're told, by beings who are clearly better than you.

[idleidolidyll]

Nope - once again you confuse tyanny with capitalisim.



nope, it's you who has decided to ignore the actual meaning of capitalist and capitalism and BTW, i've pointed out many times that fascism can be left OR right.

please don't expect me to debate until you actually get a grip on reality

go read Karl Marx, voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century and then go read Adam Smith; you really need some education on the subject

[Robert Taylor]

by definition, the power hungry are authoritarians and in extremis are fascists.

That describes your favourite model to a tee: Amerikkka

Helen has a looonnngggg way to go before she becomes as corrupt as most yank politicians

BTW: did you miss the bit where i said clearly that i don't support Labour? ( Worse )

slap! wake up Robert

''Never in the field of human debate have I heard so much self righteous socialist claptrap uttered to so many by so few''

[idleidolidyll]

''Never in the field of human debate have I heard so much self righteous socialist claptrap uttered to so many by so few''

opinions are like arseholes robert, you have yours and i have mine

personally i think much the same of the junk you have on offer

[98tls]

opinions are like arseholes robert, you have yours and i have mine

personally i think much the same of the junk you have on offer :oi-grr:cmon this was actually getting interesting,you can do better than that.

[idleidolidyll]

:oi-grr:cmon this was actually getting interesting,you can do better than that.

as usual i reply in kind

debate with intelligence and integrity and i'll try and return the favour

post cheap shots and i'll biff a few across the bow as well

[scumdog]

opinions are like arseholes robert, you have yours and i have mine

personally i think much the same of the junk you have on offer

Ya know Robert, you've reached the same status as I in old tripleidles eyes when he makes that comment - dunno if we can say the same back but at times I sure as hell feel like it.

[Mr Merde]

Careful there. You often find that the more traveled people are, the more left they tend to be.

In the case of III,

1 year in Manila
2 years in UK
2 years in Namibia
2-3 years in China
Numerous visits overseas
Lots more places I cant remember but I am sure III would list them if asked

Merde

[idleidolidyll]

Ya know Robert, you've reached the same status as I in old tripleidles eyes when he makes that comment - dunno if we can say the same back but at times I sure as hell feel like it.

sure you can, that's the whole point: opinions ARE like arseholes and as I said; we ALL have em

[idleidolidyll]

In the case of III,

1 year in Manila
2 years in UK
2 years in Namibia
2-3 years in China
Numerous visits overseas
Lots more places I cant remember but I am sure III would list them if asked

Merde

4 years in Britain 81-84 and 1999
you missed Singapore, Canada, Malaysia

did i forget any? probably

of course from those places I've visited a shit load more..............

[Mr Merde]

What absolute rubbish !

....

The Kings of old liked their wealth - but they were not capitalists.

They took land using force and made the inhabitants of that land their subjects.

...!

Look at the USA

1898 invaded Cuba on a trumped up reason,

1898, invaded and annexed Hawaii

1905 invaded Phillipines

1981 invaded Iraq

2003 invaded Iraq again


All for ecconomic reasons.

the lasted being "King Oil"


Merde

[scumdog]

And NZ had invaded how many???
Mwahahahah, like we could invade ANYTHING!!!

[Robert Taylor]

Ya know Robert, you've reached the same status as I in old tripleidles eyes when he makes that comment - dunno if we can say the same back but at times I sure as hell feel like it.

Shame his oratory is no match for the wit and eloquence of the great Englishmans speech that I paraphrased.

Anyway, this is intermittent light releif in amongst my dirty filthy capitalist endeavours that I must further engage with. More tax for next years bribery fund....

[idleidolidyll]

Look at the USA

1898 invaded Cuba on a trumped up reason,

1898, invaded and annexed Hawaii

1905 invaded Phillipines

1981 invaded Iraq

2003 invaded Iraq again


All for ecconomic reasons.

the lasted being "King Oil"


Merde

and that's just the tip of the iceberg

the USA was found guilty of terrorism when it mined Managua Harbour.

Of course, since it has a veto in the UN Security Council, nothing was done about it

The USA also terrorised dozens of other countries and/or helped ruthless dictators terrorise them

fucked if i'll ever accept them as a paragon of virtue or humanitarianism

[idleidolidyll]

Shame his oratory is no match for the wit and eloquence of the great Englishmans speech that I paraphrased.

Anyway, this is intermittent light releif in amongst my dirty filthy capitalist endeavours that I must further engage with. More tax for next years bribery fund....

a shame your paraphrasing was no match for the wit and intelligence of the person you plagiarised

never mind, i accept your admission of defeat by way of fallacy

[scumdog]

and that's just the tip of the iceberg

the USA was found guilty of terrorism when it mined Managua Harbour.

Of course, since it has a veto in the UN Security Council, nothing was done about it

The USA also terrorised dozens of other countries and/or helped ruthless dictators terrorise them

fucked if i'll ever accept them as a paragon of virtue or humanitarianism

No argument here but ferk, they make some great bikes and cars!!!!

[idleidolidyll]

goodnight sweethearts

please, post something intelligent and logical for me to dissect, the regurgitated propaganda is ridiculous

back tomorrow perhaps or when i next have time

[idleidolidyll]

No argument here but ferk, they make some great bikes and cars!!!!

more opinions eh?

maybe that new Buell and a few of cars i could count on the fingers of one hand...............i prefer cars that go around corners; bikes too

oh well, each to their own

[scumdog]

more opinions eh?

maybe that new Buell and a few of cars i could count on the fingers of one hand...............i prefer cars that go around corners; bikes too

oh well, each to their own

I've got to the age where I appreciate style over function to a certain degree.
A lot of the time I would rather have a wallowing whale with style to a bland set of wheels capable of pulling 1G while getting around a corner - it's the journey vs the destination thing I suppose.

Of course there's the odd combination of the two like an AC Cobra.....should I ever be able to afford a car worth more than $15,000 - $20,000...

[Mr Merde]

...for the wit and eloquence of the great Englishmans speech that I paraphrased.

......

Great Englishman, mmmm

1/2 American from his mother
captured and escaped in the Boer War.
Considered not very bright at school.
A member of the British "upper class"
Independantly wealthy, arrogant, alcholic and a "womaniser".

Author of a little excurssion in WW1 involving the invasion of the Dardenelles (Turkey and Golipolli)

Argued during WW2 for a similar invasion.

With the same countries troops.Yes a great orator but a great Englishman, personally I find this debatable.

[idleidolidyll]

I've got to the age where I appreciate style over function to a certain degree.
A lot of the time I would rather have a wallowing whale with style to a bland set of wheels capable of pulling 1G while getting around a corner - it's the journey vs the destination thing I suppose.

Of course there's the odd combination of the two like an AC Cobra.....should I ever be able to afford a car worth more than $15,000 - $20,000...

yes, i understand that and having suffered a broken back, i've been told i should have a similar attitude

i don't though and you're welcome to your cruisers etc; i appreciate the reason for em and have ridden a few hogs myself (phone in hand smoking a cigar of course)

yes, the AC Cobra is one on that list along with the GT40 and a few others

Europe makes the best cars though

[scumdog]

yes, the AC Cobra is one on that list along with the GT40 and a few others

Europe makes the best cars though

Bloody opinions, everybody got one, just like they have.......etc

[98tls]

more opinions eh?

maybe that new Buell and a few of cars i could count on the fingers of one hand...............i prefer cars that go around corners; bikes too

oh well, each to their own Makes me recount a rather frightening incident that took place going to the last march hare....a few KBers called in home and i rode up there with them,being familar with the roads i suggested turning off over the waitaki bridge and going through waimate gorge which we did,theres a few long straights to get to the gorge and pretty uninhabited so away i went only to have the rather bright light of a Victory (made in America) in my mirror which just would not go away,not even at 260kms which was me tapped out,i thought once i got to the gorge it would be :bye::bye:which it was but only to a point:shit:best bit of riding on a cruiser i have ever witnessed:Punk:

[Winston001]

To be reminded - a world of willing buyer, willing seller needs no force. You pay for the services you want, you don't buy those you don't want, and you reach agreement on the terms, or the deal falls through.


I agree. However social democracy is a necessary intrusion into the mix because over time, astute sellers corner the market and the bargain becomes unbalanced.

For example, about 100 years ago a small number of early settler families held much of the land in NZ. Those large estates were broken up by the government so that new farmers had a chance.




On the other hand Socialists HAVE to do it. Because socialisim is not about freedom Its about force. Its about compulsion. It's about doing as you're told, by beings who are clearly better than you.Yes and that is how I see it too. State intervention, compulsion, to take from one to give to another. Directed by a light hand, we can all live with this, but too much and there is no incentive to be productive.

[Robert Taylor]

Great Englishman, mmmm

1/2 American from his mother
captured and escaped in the Boer War.
Considered not very bright at school.
A member of the British "upper class"
Independantly wealthy, arrogant, alcholic and a "womaniser".

Author of a little excurssion in WW1 involving the invasion of the Dardenelles (Turkey and Golipolli)

Argued during WW2 for a similar invasion.

With the same countries troops.Yes a great orator but a great Englishman, personally I find this debatable.

I didnt say Winston was perfect but he was a far better bet than keeping Chamberlain or the appeaser Lord Halifax.

[Robert Taylor]

goodnight sweethearts

please, post something intelligent and logical for me to dissect, the regurgitated propaganda is ridiculous

back tomorrow perhaps or when i next have time

Sleep well , just like Helen you know best for all of us.......even though we wont beat to the drum you are beating so loudly.

Given that your ilk took a beating in the council elections and will do so in the general one next year it might not be so prudent to beat so hard.

[Robert Taylor]

a shame your paraphrasing was no match for the wit and intelligence of the person you plagiarised

never mind, i accept your admission of defeat by way of fallacy

I concede no defeat and that man had a more interesting life, had acts of brilliance and acts of disaster on a scale that you or I could never attain. He would definitely be included in my fantasy dinner table of people from history. Your mate Karl is not even on the radar screen.

[Robert Taylor]

I agree. However social democracy is a necessary intrusion into the mix because over time, astute sellers corner the market and the bargain becomes unbalanced.

For example, about 100 years ago a small number of early settler families held much of the land in NZ. Those large estates were broken up by the government so that new farmers had a chance.



Yes and that is how I see it too. State intervention, compulsion, to take from one to give to another. Directed by a light hand, we can all live with this, but too much and there is no incentive to be productive.

That makes perfect sense.

[Mr Merde]

I concede no defeat and that man had a more interesting life, had acts of brilliance and acts of disaster on a scale that you or I could never attain. He would definitely be included in my fantasy dinner table of people from history. Your mate Karl is not even on the radar screen.

The man was a polititian. He himself calls the years when he wasnt in the limelight as "the wilderness years" he crossed the house in an attempt to further his ambitions. He was a great speaker but with the integrity of a cheap whore.

It has been shown that he and his government had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbour and kept quiet so as to involve the US.

He condoned the fire bombing of Dresden. An event that killed more people than the atomic bomb and on a place that had no military value at all. If the Germans had of sucessfully invaded the Uk he would have been treated as a war criminal.

When WW2 ended so did his reign. He never again attained the popularity or control he ENJOYED during the war.

Have him at your dinner table by all means but probably be prepared for him to bluster and dominate.


Merde

[BIGBOSSMAN]

A nice pic of two old socialists whining from the balcony, but is anyone really listening to them? :zzzz:

[98tls]

He condoned the fire bombing of Dresden. An event that killed more people than the atomic bomb and on a place that had no military value at all. If the Germans had of sucessfully invaded the Uk he would have been treated as a war criminal.



Merde Being of German descent i would love to agree but faced with the big picture why would he have reason to care about Dresden or in fact any other German city.Total war leaves no room for conscience or regret....only actions.

[idleidolidyll]

Given that your ilk took a beating in the council elections and will do so in the general one next year it might not be so prudent to beat so hard.

you actually think local body elections are an indicator?

hilarious!

30% turnout with a great deal of votes placed merely because the voters recognise the person standing from TV or the newspapers makes the whole thing a nonsense.

BTW: the party I support GAINED a significant number of places in local body elections.

Wake up Robert, you're still in a daze

[idleidolidyll]

I concede no defeat and that man had a more interesting life, had acts of brilliance and acts of disaster on a scale that you or I could never attain. He would definitely be included in my fantasy dinner table of people from history. Your mate Karl is not even on the radar screen.

Oh sure, I understand why so many Conservatives hate Karl Marx even though he was voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century.

Conservatives are terrified of intellectuals (people who use their brains), intelligent people are a threat to hackneyed conservative bullshit.

Churchill was a thug, a drunk and extremely abusive. Outside the World Wars, society would have likely thrown him in prison.

[Robert Taylor]

Oh sure, I understand why so many Conservatives hate Karl Marx even though he was voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century.

Conservatives are terrified of intellectuals (people who use their brains), intelligent people are a threat to hackneyed conservative bullshit.

Churchill was a thug, a drunk and extremely abusive. Outside the World Wars, society would have likely thrown him in prison.

In your view of the world you doubtless find it impossible to concede that people can be both intellectual and conservative. Enoch Powell was a prime example of an extremely intelligent man with conservative views. ( Gosh I can hear the uproar already )
As I have intimated before the most infuriating thing about hardcore socialists is they have a ''holier than thou'' attitude that their way is the only right way.

[scumdog]

.......Karl Marx even though he was voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century..


Even more bloody opinions.:whistle:...why is THIS one getting any credence over others????:spudwhat::wait:

[Finn]

you actually think local body elections are an indicator?

Typical lefty response. In the face of loss, plead ignorance. The majority of NZ have had a guts full of you and your lot Idle. National will win the next election so you better start looking for a job so you can feed all your welfare dependent offspring.

[Usarka]

Typical lefty response. In the face of loss, plead ignorance. The majority of NZ have had a guts full of you and your lot Idle. National will win the next election so you better start looking for a job so you can feed all your welfare dependent offspring.

Unfortunately i dont share your confidence mr finn. labour hasn't built up an empire of over half a million public servants for nothing. most of these are a gauranteed vote once clark starts the fear campaign rolling. then add all the beneficiaries in the country, you 've got to be getting close to half the population.

[Robert Taylor]

Unfortunately i dont share your confidence mr finn. labour hasn't built up an empire of over half a million public servants for nothing. most of these are a gauranteed vote once clark starts the fear campaign rolling. then add all the beneficiaries in the country, you 've got to be getting close to half the population.

I am with Finn in the desired outcome but yes I share your concerns about what these cretins have engineered. Add to that deliberate immigration and ''conditioning'' of those most likely to vote Labour.

[MisterD]

Churchill was a thug, a drunk and extremely abusive. Outside the World Wars, society would have likely thrown him in prison.

Should we pick on a socialist hero then? How about Nye Bevan? Made to repeat a year at school, also a drunk, also changed parties to suit his own career...

[Finn]

I am with Finn in the desired outcome but yes I share your concerns about what these cretins have engineered. Add to that deliberate immigration and ''conditioning'' of those most likely to vote Labour.

Don't give up hope Robert. I've already started my election campaign, I trust you are doing the same. Out of 50 staff, 30 are doing the right thing regardless, 15 are swing voters going right and 5 don't have a very bright future in the company.

[Robert Taylor]

Don't give up hope Robert. I've already started my election campaign, I trust you are doing the same. Out of 50 staff, 30 are doing the right thing regardless, 15 are swing voters going right and 5 don't have a very bright future in the company.

I agree, cant let the bastards grind us down!

[Robert Taylor]

Should we pick on a socialist hero then? How about Nye Bevan? Made to repeat a year at school, also a drunk, also changed parties to suit his own career...

Add Norman Kirk to that, an old guy I knew worked with him in a freezing works and had some tales to tell.

[Winston001]

It has been shown that he and his government had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbour and kept quiet so as to involve the US.

Yes - from President Roosevelt himself who kept deliberately quiet so the US would be drawn into the war which at the time Congress didn't support.


He condoned the fire bombing of Dresden. An event that killed more people than the atomic bomb and on a place that had no military value at all. If the Germans had of sucessfully invaded the Uk he would have been treated as a war criminal.


Errr....didn't the Germans start this by bombing London??? Prior to that it had been agreed cities would not be targeted but the Nazis changed the rules. You also conveniently overlook the concentration camps and 6 million deaths which I suggest far outweigh bombing of cities.

[Mr Merde]

Yes - from President Eisenhower ......


Elected President in 1956,

I think you meant Roosevelt

[Ocean1]

Add Norman Kirk to that, an old guy I knew worked with him in a freezing works and had some tales to tell.

Dude it's pointless listing them, they're all arseholes. It doesn't matter where thay've come from or what flavour their ideologies, in order to get to the top of the political heap they've become capable of ignoring sustainable best practices in order to buy votes. That automatically makes all of them incapable of managing an economy let alone a cohesive social policy.

In order to gain control National need to buy exactly the same floating votes that Labout do, what then is the real difference likely to be? Specifically, how do we get all those clever bastards back home? and how do we get them driving our economy the way they currently are offshore?

I think I know, I just want some feedback...

[Bass]

It's been said that a politician's first duty is to get elected.
It's also said that a country gets the government that it deserves.
I think that there's a bit of truth in both of these lines.
However if you take them together, it makes one wonder if there's any hope no matter what we do.

[Ocean1]

It's been said that a politician's first duty is to get elected.
It's also said that a country gets the government that it deserves.
I think that there's a bit of truth in both of these lines.
However if you take them together, it makes one wonder if there's any hope no matter what we do.

There's not a scrap of truth to either of 'em. They were both uttered by politicians.

[Robert Taylor]

Dude it's pointless listing them, they're all arseholes. It doesn't matter where thay've come from or what flavour their ideologies, in order to get to the top of the political heap they've become capable of ignoring sustainable best practices in order to buy votes. That automatically makes all of them incapable of managing an economy let alone a cohesive social policy.

In order to gain control National need to buy exactly the same floating votes that Labout do, what then is the real difference likely to be? Specifically, how do we get all those clever bastards back home? and how do we get them driving our economy the way they currently are offshore?

I think I know, I just want some feedback...

Yes, you are right. Every succcessive Labour Government has pushed the goalposts further left and incoming National administrations havent been able to reset them for fear of certain electoral defeat. That much of the population has been programmed to have a ''world owes me a living mentality'' has made a certainty of that.

I have a ''fantasy solution'' but it is unprintable.

MMP certainly needs to be tossed out, a system primarily designed for post war Germany so that it would be difficult for the fascists to rise again. But here in NZ it has allowed Sue Bradford, Keith Locke and a druggie to become MPs. A good many people find that very unappetising.

[vifferman]

So why bother using someone else’s pink crayons to paint your personal picture? The questionnaire used to produce the data set for that survey is more emotively spun than most I've seen. It paints me quite a different colour to most other similar tools.

Try this one, so simple there’s little room for spin… http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

What colour are you now?
Well, on the first test, it said I was even more leftist/libertarian than the Greens (who I loathe), and 'your' test, it said I was a centrist (slightly left of centre).
I don't agree with either - they're both too simplistic.

And I'd like to think I'm more than a labelled one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
I have at least two dimensions to my character. :whocares:

[Bass]

There's not a scrap of truth to either of 'em. They were both uttered by politicians.
Here we go again - I disagree
Until he is elected, he's not a politician and so getting elected must be his first duty.
Secondly, if we believe their promises and elect them on that basis without examining their record (as we tend to do) then we deserve everything we get.

I actually think that we don't pay them enough to attract any real management talent. Can you imagine the CEO of any multi-billion turnover company (rough size of our economy) working for Hulen's salary.
Cut their numbers by at least two thirds I say but pay them appropriately, and with annual performance appraisals to pre-notified objectives

[SPman]

Pay them more - the bastards will try to hang in even longer!!!!

I reckon max 2 terms, then a bullet - because by then they've lost any humanity they might have had and are happily screwing up society to their own twisted visions......

[Ocean1]

Well, on the first test, it said I was even more leftist/libertarian than the Greens (who I loathe), and 'your' test, it said I was a centrist (slightly left of centre).
I don't agree with either - they're both too simplistic.

And I'd like to think I'm more than a labelled one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
I have at least two dimensions to my character. :whocares:

Tools like that do tend to reinforce stereotypes and labels, and they're spinable to get the result you'd like respondents to see. Can be instructive though, and "my" one is so simple as to be tolerably transparent and therefore less prone to rotation by the spin doctor / boogie man of your choice.

For the long term I'm not too worried about the effect of left/right drift due to cultural fashion purges and PC imposed blinkers. Human instinct is to progress, to make a better life for themselves and their kids. Any system drifting too far from that which represents a sustainable set of policies will eventually fail,, to be replaced eventually by one that allows that growth.

Believe it or not I score only slightly right-of-centre. I also score well towards the bottom of the scale wrt the trade off between risk/choice and control/security, always have, it’s an item of self reliance and self resopnsibility. That apparently makes Libertarianism the label of classic choice. I won’t argue.

The short term isn't looking promising though, this is, for now, a place for those who's grasp, (impressive as it has become) exceeds their reach. Our tall poppy syndrome has finally produced the inevitable result of rendering achievement unfashionable, unrewarding and ineffective. A great deal of the most enterprising of us either no longer live here or have gone into entrepreneurial hibernation, (excepting some of those who’s income derives from the public purse).

Re dimensions, I believe last time they counted there were 9, but I'm fooked if I know where most of them go.

[Ocean1]

Here we go again - I disagree
Until he is elected, he's not a politician and so getting elected must be his first duty.
Secondly, if we believe their promises and elect them on that basis without examining their record (as we tend to do) then we deserve everything we get.

I actually think that we don't pay them enough to attract any real management talent. Can you imagine the CEO of any multi-billion turnover company (rough size of our economy) working for Hulen's salary.
Cut their numbers by at least two thirds I say but pay them appropriately, and with annual performance appraisals to pre-notified objectives

I should use the sarcasm smiley huh?

Tongue was indeed lurking cheekwards, however I insist that there's a significant majority of politicians who can not in fact point to a voting majority, both within government and without.

Further, I insist that no inteligent voter deserves to be lied to, let alone subject to levels of dishonesty that make simple porkies seem utterly benign. Also, that it'd be just plain nice if the concept of adequate civil service didn't nescessarily always have the highest price tag attached.

[Bass]

I should use the sarcasm smiley huh?

Tongue was indeed lurking cheekwards, however I insist that there's a significant majority of politicians who can not in fact point to a voting majority, both within government and without.

Further, I insist that no inteligent voter deserves to be lied to, let alone subject to levels of dishonesty that make simple porkies seem utterly benign. Also, that it'd be just plain nice if the concept of adequate civil service didn't nescessarily always have the highest price tag attached.

Roger that - I'm rather naive from time to time

As for the rest.... well MMP can be viewed both ways I guess and I think that Civil Servant is the ultimate oxymoron

[Sanx]

go read Karl Marx, voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century

Who voted him the 'greatest thinker' of the 20th century? And should any credence be given to whoever voted him the greatest thinker of the 20th century, considering he died 17 years before the end of the 19th century?

[vifferman]

Tools like that do tend to reinforce stereotypes and labels, and they're spinable to get the result you'd like respondents to see. Can be instructive though, and "my" one is so simple as to be tolerably transparent and therefore less prone to rotation by the spin doctor / boogie man of your choice.
Yes.
III's one had four obvious categories for each answer, to put you in one of four squares on the resultant graph thingo (technical term). For many of those, I would've answered differently; instead of strongly agree/disagree, I would've said "dunno" or similar.
Even though I'm apparently more saintly than Mandela or Ghandi :blink:, the poll didn't really reveal several things about my values.

I hate (deeply and passionately) the creeping rise of safety-nazism and bureaucracy, and the slow death of personal responsibility and natural consequences.
We have become a culture of people that whenever something adverse happens cry out our mantra: "There should be a law against it!"
Or our alternative plea: "The Gummint should do something about this!"
Sadly, this self-perpetuating folly has visited on us a bland grey 'safety' that cocoons and cossets us from the dangers of personal responsibility.

While I strongly believe in helping those who genuinely can't help themselves, the current welfare culture is not working.
It helps those who know how to play the system, and actively discourages self-help and independence in favour of institutionalism and bureaucracy.
I experienced this first-hand when I was unemployed when I moved to Tauranga in 1996. Thankfully, this first encounter with WINZ (a clash of cultures/values) gave me the impetus to help myself, and I spent two years (before moving to D'Auckland) keeping myself busy by house-husbanding, odd-jobbing (painting, plastering, etc.) and doing some part-time programming and computer support.
My second experience when helping my son when he was unable to work was similarly unpleasant and made me feel rather tainted. It was only slightly less demeaning than begging on the streets (albeit more lucrative). It took some research and more than a little effort to understand the WINZ machine, as it's very much geared up towards dole-bludging rather than "a helping hand when you need it".

While I'm not a big fan of patriotism and national fervour, it disturbs me the extent to which we have sold 'our' country to foreign interests.
The Muldoon gummint of the 70's did a very bad thing selling off the silverware at plasticware prices, and we'll be reaping the consequences for a very long time.

Our culture has become very greedy, selfish and materialistic.
Moral depravity and "me first" has replaced the NooZild of olde.

[Sanx]

III, you seem to have a problem with what people mean by 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. A major part of your arguments seems to be over whether a particular action is capitalist or socialist in nature, or whether policies reflect those two economic systems. And you also seem to delight in responding to arguments by stating someone's assertion that something's capitalist or socialist in nature is down the their misunderstanding of the term.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'socialism' as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".

Likewise 'capitalism' is defined by the AHD as "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" and the OED as "An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state".

Both definitions are fairly similar. And they're widely accepted by the majority of people as being accurate. Your definitions of socialism and capitalism, however, seem to change on a daily basis depending on what argument you're attempting to formulate an answer to. Assuming that others are ignorant of the 'true' meaning does no justice to whatever argument you had, nor does it show respect for anyone else.

Your statement that fascism can be aplied to governments on the left or the right is also incorrect. Extreme left governments display many of the traits of extreme right-wing governments, but as fascism was a term coined to describe Mussolini and his style of government (Fascism, from the Italian fascismo, from fascio 'bundle, political group, ' from Latin fascis 'bundle.'), it's a term inextricably linked with extreme right-wing politics. I have no proof of this, but I'd imagine that the majority of people if asked "Is Fascism right-wing or left-wing?" would respond "Right wing".

The development of language can itself be decribed as showing traits of communism. The evolution of language is defined by the will of those who speak it. Words, and the meanings of them, change over time. The 'correct' meaning of a word is the one that's accepted by the majority as being correct. Therefore, should you disagree with what everyone else means by a particular word; you're wrong - not them.

[vifferman]

Civil servants generally forget they are serving the 'civilians' and not themselves. I was not surprised at the low voter 'turnout' for the recent local body elections, if most people felt like me: what fargin difference does it really make? Aren't all politicians pretty much cut from the same cloth? Even if they start out with high hopes, great morals and brilliant ideas, how will they fare once they're in power?

I can't remember where I read it (a Terry Pratchett "Discworld" novel, perhaps?) but there was a story where the politicians and bureaucrats were all people who didn't want the job, and were given it as punishment for antisocial crimes. Brilliant! Think about it - anyone who wants to be in government is inherently unsuitable for the task. Conversely, if you don't want the job, but can get out as soon as you've performed it well, there's every incentive to be efficient.

[SPman]

Oh well - back to Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct"


I have no proof of this, but I'd imagine that the majority of people if asked "Is Fascism right-wing or left-wing?" would respond "Right wing".
Yep - but, left wing / right wing, it's still the same old bird!

[Ocean1]

Yes.
III's one had four obvious categories for each answer, to put you in one of four squares on the resultant graph thingo (technical term). For many of those, I would've answered differently; instead of strongly agree/disagree, I would've said "dunno" or similar.
Even though I'm apparently more saintly than Mandela or Ghandi :blink:, the poll didn't really reveal several things about my values.

I wonder if it can really be simplified quite as far as the Libertarian's version. Maybe not, still for me it boils down to pretty much exactly those factors: "To what extent should the successful support the unsuccessful", and "To what extent should this opinion be forced upon society".

Some would have it that the right have a monopoly on the making and enforcement of rules generally not relevant to other than moral issues. Take a glance at the current bunch. There's an organisational maxim, (that I can't be fucked tracking down but which is nonetheless valid) that rules beget rules, add infinitum, and that regulation never diminishes short of dramatic social upheaval. There’s currently enough rules of all sorts that it’s near impossible to carry out any form of activity without not only encountering them but unavoidably trampling them underfoot. This, more than the left/right issue, is my most pressing concern.

Any of you who’ve built a house or managed a business in the last few years will know exactly what I mean. The focus for perfectly normal people becomes not “what’s the best cost/effective solution” but “which rules are less damaging to break”.
Any fucker who suggests he might reduce the sheer size of our central and regional governmental regulatory machinery has automatically got my vote. Especially if the first rule to go is the one that prevents me “publishing” the above opinion in election year. If no fucker is prepared to make such a suggestion then mayhap it’s time for a wee spot of social upheaval.

[idleidolidyll]

Even more bloody opinions.:whistle:...why is THIS one getting any credence over others????:spudwhat::wait:

because it was voted on by an esteemed group of international intellectuals rather than the opinion of a bunch of nobodies and know nothings in NZ

[idleidolidyll]

Typical lefty response. In the face of loss, plead ignorance. The majority of NZ have had a guts full of you and your lot Idle. National will win the next election so you better start looking for a job so you can feed all your welfare dependent offspring.

I didn't plead ignorance, I laughed and AGAIN stated that MY favoured party (not Labour), GAINED seats in local body elections even though the electoral process is a joke.

On the other hand, you showed ignorance in your silly response; ignorance of my repeated statements.

As for "NZ has had a guts full...." ROTFLMFAO! National MAY indeed win the next election and that may be a good thing. There are obviously a lot of young people here who were not adults and cognisant of politics the last time they held power. These people will be unaware of just how odious National is and the damage their housing, health, economic policies were PLUS the unbelievably vile fascist Employment Contracts Act.

I welcome the opportunity for National to fuck it all up again and last one term after which the left may hold power for ANOTHER 3 terms.

A job? I have a great job, you're probably just a jealous loser and my offspring has a job and two fine kids. Your asinine attack on my family exposes you as the loser I knew you to be but keep it up: I give back as good or better than I receive. Pissants don't bother me at all.

[idleidolidyll]

III, you seem to have a problem with what people mean by 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. A major part of your arguments seems to be over whether a particular action is capitalist or socialist in nature, or whether policies reflect those two economic systems. And you also seem to delight in responding to arguments by stating someone's assertion that something's capitalist or socialist in nature is down the their misunderstanding of the term.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'socialism' as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".

Likewise 'capitalism' is defined by the AHD as "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" and the OED as "An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state".

Both definitions are fairly similar. And they're widely accepted by the majority of people as being accurate. Your definitions of socialism and capitalism, however, seem to change on a daily basis depending on what argument you're attempting to formulate an answer to. Assuming that others are ignorant of the 'true' meaning does no justice to whatever argument you had, nor does it show respect for anyone else.

Your statement that fascism can be aplied to governments on the left or the right is also incorrect. Extreme left governments display many of the traits of extreme right-wing governments, but as fascism was a term coined to describe Mussolini and his style of government (Fascism, from the Italian fascismo, from fascio 'bundle, political group, ' from Latin fascis 'bundle.'), it's a term inextricably linked with extreme right-wing politics. I have no proof of this, but I'd imagine that the majority of people if asked "Is Fascism right-wing or left-wing?" would respond "Right wing".

The development of language can itself be decribed as showing traits of communism. The evolution of language is defined by the will of those who speak it. Words, and the meanings of them, change over time. The 'correct' meaning of a word is the one that's accepted by the majority as being correct. Therefore, should you disagree with what everyone else means by a particular word; you're wrong - not them.

The problem is theirs sanx. As your link shows, the difference between the two is where the control lies and that is exactly what i told Mr Reid. Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy). It's not a 'small' difference, it's a fundamental difference.

The former in extremis is a dictatorship and the latter in extremis is a kind of anarchy.

As for your contention that YOUR explanations are 'accepted as widely accurate': sorry, wrong. If that were true, the definitions would be exactly the same in every dictionary; they're not and an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

The fact is that various interest groups OWN the organisations doing the defining and the definitions are often slanted toward THEIR opinions. The fact remains and in the simplest terms possible: capitalism is about control in the hands of the wealthy elite few while socialism is about control by the will of the people.

[idleidolidyll]

Who voted him the 'greatest thinker' of the 20th century? And should any credence be given to whoever voted him the greatest thinker of the 20th century, considering he died 17 years before the end of the 19th century?

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.

Here's the top ten:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <!-----------------------TASK 1 put in the relevant headline----------------------> <td align="left" valign="top">Your Top 10 Thinkers:</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <td align="left" valign="top">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <td> <!-----------------------TASK 2 put in the Top Ten people----------------------> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="433"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">1.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Karl Marx</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">2.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Albert Einstein</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">3.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Sir Isaac Newton</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">4.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Charles Darwin</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">5.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Thomas Aquinas</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">6.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Stephen Hawking</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">7.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Immanuel Kant</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">8.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Rene Descartes</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">9.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">James Clerk Maxwell</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">10.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Friedrich Nietzche</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/millennium/sep/winner.stm

that's the penalty for quick off the cuff remarks I guess, sometimes your memory is not as sharp as might be desired.

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

[idleidolidyll]

In your view of the world you doubtless find it impossible to concede that people can be both intellectual and conservative. Enoch Powell was a prime example of an extremely intelligent man with conservative views. ( Gosh I can hear the uproar already )
As I have intimated before the most infuriating thing about hardcore socialists is they have a ''holier than thou'' attitude that their way is the only right way.

There ya go trying to put words in my mouth. No, you're wrong. Of course conservatives CAN be intellectual; it's just that the run of the mill conservative seems positively petrified of intellectuals. Just cruise political forums on the internet for a while and see for yourself.

As for the old holier than thou bullshit: your side is just as guilty and I scoff at yet another dumb propaganda fallacy from your pen.

[idleidolidyll]

Should we pick on a socialist hero then? How about Nye Bevan? Made to repeat a year at school, also a drunk, also changed parties to suit his own career...

pick on whoever you like, i don't really give a rats arse

it's a free world

winston was offered as some kind of paragon. Mr Merde rightly pointed out he was extremely flawed and I noted by inference that men of war may be heroes in war time but scoundrels and villains in peace time.

Wasn't he Minister of War in WW!? That was when the Brits plotted the Lusitania thing wasn't it? :devil2:

[Robert Taylor]

There ya go trying to put words in my mouth. No, you're wrong. Of course conservatives CAN be intellectual; it's just that the run of the mill conservative seems positively petrified of intellectuals. Just cruise political forums on the internet for a while and see for yourself.

As for the old holier than thou bullshit: your side is just as guilty and I scoff at yet another dumb propaganda fallacy from your pen.

Good evening Mr Idlelefty! I see you are on form again. Note that not everyone has as much free idle time to google as you might have. So your conclusions are too often pre judgemental.

Certainly Enoch Powells famous ''rivers of blood'' speech is ringing true, dont you think? I admired this man for his intellect and conservatism, he also had an impeccable military record. Some of our finest politicians were ex military men i.e Marshall, Duncan Macintyre, Walker, Gordon, Thompson, etc. Pity we dont have more men of such fine mettle here in 2007.

When John Marshall lost the 72 election to that idiot Kirk NZ took a step backwards in a blink.

[idleidolidyll]

Good evening Mr Idlelefty! I see you are on form again. Note that not everyone has as much free idle time to google as you might have.

I worked a full day today and I'm at home STILL working. Please don't bore me with your stupid leaps of 'un'tuition

[Delerium]

Are you trying to convice us or state your opinion? I get the idea that he who yells loudest is right. Well, I dont think that way, and reading all the posts a lot of people dont agree with you either, they just seem calmer when getting their point across. I cant put my finger on it but the way you are expressing yourself really rubs me up the wrong way (please no inuendo commentary)

[Grahameeboy]

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.

Here's the top ten:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <!-----------------------TASK 1 put in the relevant headline----------------------> <td align="left" valign="top">Your Top 10 Thinkers:</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <td align="left" valign="top">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <td> <!-----------------------TASK 2 put in the Top Ten people----------------------> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="433"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">1.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Karl Marx</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">2.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Albert Einstein</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">3.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Sir Isaac Newton</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">4.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Charles Darwin</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">5.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Thomas Aquinas</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">6.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Stephen Hawking</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">7.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Immanuel Kant</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">8.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Rene Descartes</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">9.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">James Clerk Maxwell</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">10.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Friedrich Nietzche</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/millennium/sep/winner.stm

that's the penalty for quick off the cuff remarks I guess, sometimes your memory is not as sharp as might be desired.

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

Which one are you?

[Winston001]

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

I knew you were wrong about the 20th century. I just couldn't be bothered telling you.

[davereid]

The problem is theirs sanx. As your link shows, the difference between the two is where the control lies and that is exactly what i told Mr Reid. Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy). It's not a 'small' difference, it's a fundamental difference. The fact remains and in the simplest terms possible: capitalism is about control in the hands of the wealthy elite few while socialism is about control by the will of the people.

Actually the difference is less about who controls resources and more about how they are controlled.

The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all go down to the publicans for a bit of capitalist trading. By the end of the night, three of them are drunk, and all four have a pork pie, with a great pasty crust, and a light to get home with.

How do the two systems have to deal with this ?

Well, the capitalist system need do nothing about this transaction. Its just normal human interaction, it needs no government involvement.

It may need over time to develop some simple systems that ensure a new candlemaker opening in town can visit the butcher to get tallow. But thats it. All government need ensure is that there is no price fixing, and that fair competition is not shut down.

And actually, even if these systems never existed, it would self correct - candles would get too expensive, and a cunning candlemaker would invent the oil powered lamp.

How would a socialist system deal with it ?

Well, it wouldn't. It would firstly have to add officials. And some people don't like officials, so it would need to add soldiers or police to make sure the officials get their way.

Officials like to be well paid, after all, they are wise men who make important decisions that affect many.

So we need tax, officials to count it, and jails to lock up anyone who might oppose it.

One of the officials is a planner. He has noticed that there are too many publicans. So now we outlaw publicans, but if you pay a fee, and kiss the arse of the official, you can apply for a licence, that may allow you to stay in business.

The insurance companies fire department has gone, as it was unfair that uninsured people didn't get their fires put out. And worse, if their fire burnt down someone elses house, they got billed ! simply not fair ! So now, the government runs the fire department.

And look at that. So many fires started by candles. Yep, better ban them. Fuck its dark though. Let 'em make candles. But they better have a licence. We will hire an official to make sure they don't sell em to anyone who might start a fire.

Hmm.

So to recap - Capitalists willingly trade among themselves as free men. They haven't read Marx, and don't know they are oppressed.

Socialists are the greatest thinkers, and intellectuals. They recognise the oppression, and selflessly organise an army, to take money off the oppressed butcher, baker and candlestick maker, so it can be used more wisely, for the benefit of all.

[Sanx]

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.

Here's the top ten:
--snip--

that's the penalty for quick off the cuff remarks I guess, sometimes your memory is not as sharp as might be desired.

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

So, rather than being voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century by a group of intellectuals (as your grandiose claim stated), it turns out he was voted the top thinker of the millenium by a public opinion poll. And this from the same country that buys Murdoch's newspapers by the millions each day. In fact, the intellectuals picked someone completely different. One opinion poll does not make a fact.


The problem is theirs sanx. As your link shows, the difference between the two is where the control lies and that is exactly what i told Mr Reid. Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy). It's not a 'small' difference, it's a fundamental difference.

The former in extremis is a dictatorship and the latter in extremis is a kind of anarchy.

As for your contention that YOUR explanations are 'accepted as widely accurate': sorry, wrong. If that were true, the definitions would be exactly the same in every dictionary; they're not and an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

They're not exactly the same, otherwise there'd be a little bit of trouble over copyright. However, they use diferent words to describe the same thing. In principle and meaning, they all agree. Therefore I stand by my comment that the dictionaries' definitions of the two terms are widely accepted as being correct (a dictionary's main purpose is to record the popular meanings of words, not to dictate them) - and that those definitions differ quite markedly from the ones you have used.


The fact is that various interest groups OWN the organisations doing the defining and the definitions are often slanted toward THEIR opinions. The fact remains and in the simplest terms possible: capitalism is about control in the hands of the wealthy elite few while socialism is about control by the will of the people.

Now you've descended into the realm of unfounded conspiracy theory. And, for someone that siezes upon ignorance with childish glee, you're demonstrating a remarkable tendency towards it yourself.The Oxford English Dictionary is a product of the Oxford University Press. This is a company wholly owned by Oxford University, itself a collection of 39 independently run colleges. The colleges are governed on a college levels by the Master and Fellows of each college, and together they make up the Oxford University Council that agrees on policy and decisions for the University as a whole. The system is about as near to a communist governance model as exists in the modern world; replace the word 'University' with 'collective' and 'council' by 'proletariat' and you have Marx's ideal government.

Where's the special interest group there? Are you so paranoid (not to mention deluded) that you believe that all dictionary owners worldwide would collectively get together and alter the meanings of certain words to further cement their capitalist powers? Do you honestly believe that?

And why, then, are you willing to accept the results of an opinion poll carried out by big organisation - the BBC - as gospel, yet dismis a dictionary published by a big organisation? The logic simply falls down at every turn.

[Robert Taylor]

So, rather than being voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century by a group of intellectuals (as your grandiose claim stated), it turns out he was voted the top thinker of the millenium by a public opinion poll. And this from the same country that buys Murdoch's newspapers by the millions each day. In fact, the intellectuals picked someone completely different. One opinion poll does not make a fact.



They're not exactly the same, otherwise there'd be a little bit of trouble over copyright. However, they use diferent words to describe the same thing. In principle and meaning, they all agree. Therefore I stand by my comment that the dictionaries' definitions of the two terms are widely accepted as being correct (a dictionary's main purpose is to record the popular meanings of words, not to dictate them) - and that those definitions differ quite markedly from the ones you have used.



Now you've descended into the realm of unfounded conspiracy theory. And, for someone that siezes upon ignorance with childish glee, you're demonstrating a remarkable tendency towards it yourself.The Oxford English Dictionary is a product of the Oxford University Press. This is a company wholly owned by Oxford University, itself a collection of 39 independently run colleges. The colleges are governed on a college levels by the Master and Fellows of each college, and together they make up the Oxford University Council that agrees on policy and decisions for the University as a whole. The system is about as near to a communist governance model as exists in the modern world; replace the word 'University' with 'collective' and 'council' by 'proletariat' and you have Marx's ideal government.

Where's the special interest group there? Are you so paranoid (not to mention deluded) that you believe that all dictionary owners worldwide would collectively get together and alter the meanings of certain words to further cement their capitalist powers? Do you honestly believe that?

And why, then, are you willing to accept the results of an opinion poll carried out by big organisation - the BBC - as gospel, yet dismis a dictionary published by a big organisation? The logic simply falls down at every turn.

The BBC stands for ''Bull..t By Communists, they have pretty much been hijacked by the left as has happened here.

[Delerium]

Please dont take my previous post as a personal attack or a dig at you, I was more referring to your argument than trying to say something about you personally. I just re read my post and realised that it could easily be taken in a different manner to that I was trying to construe.

[Robert Taylor]

I worked a full day today and I'm at home STILL working. Please don't bore me with your stupid leaps of 'un'tuition

That depends on YOUR definition of a full day. You know your posts smack of ''my wedding tackle is bigger than yours''. That puts a finger on it.

[Street Gerbil]

Here's the top ten:

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="600"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <!-----------------------TASK 1 put in the relevant headline----------------------> <td align="left" valign="top">Your Top 10 Thinkers:</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="right">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <td align="left" valign="top">http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/nothing.gif</td> <td> <!-----------------------TASK 2 put in the Top Ten people----------------------> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" width="433"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">1.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">Karl Marx</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="33">2.</td> <td align="left" bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="400">...</td> </tr> </tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>


The problem with the internet is that it is a GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out) system - it can be easily manipulated.
Some websites have the guts to pull the plug when they see that the polls are being taken over by a band of armchair revolutionaries. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/site/14081545) Other's do not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...sep/winner.stm).

3i, if I may ask just one question: if everything is so rosy with the theory, how come that the liberated proletariat is so desperate to flee the communist paradise to the nearest capitalist hellhole? How come we don't see mass immigration to Russia, North Korea, or China?

[Sanx]

The BBC stands for ''Bull..t By Communists, they have pretty much been hijacked by the left as has happened here.

You and I will have to differ on that one, sir.

And I'm sure III accused them of being beholden to their shareholders and advertisers earlier, and therefore being a mere instrument of the evil capitalists plutocrats profiting from the sweat and blood of the common worker (or something like that).

Whilst the BBC may be a little left wing, the reason I respect the organisation is that they are one of the very few media outlets that don't have to please anyone. No shareholders, no advertisers, no owners ... no-one. The number of times the Labour government took them to court to try to get them to stop broadcasting enough is an indicator that they must be doing something right.

[scumdog]

because it was voted on by an esteemed group of international intellectuals......


All self proclaimed no doubt??:girlfight:Frkkn snobs.

[idleidolidyll]

The problem with the internet is that it is a GIGO (Garbage In - Garbage Out) system - it can be easily manipulated.
Some websites have the guts to pull the plug when they see that the polls are being taken over by a band of armchair revolutionaries. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/site/14081545) Other's do not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...sep/winner.stm).

3i, if I may ask just one question: if everything is so rosy with the theory, how come that the liberated proletariat is so desperate to flee the communist paradise to the nearest capitalist hellhole? How come we don't see mass immigration to Russia, North Korea, or China?

Because communism is NOT socialism; that's why they have different names: duh!

Mind you, if you're easily sucked in by right wing propaganda I could understand how you might be so deluded.

[idleidolidyll]

You and I will have to differ on that one, sir.

And I'm sure III accused them of being beholden to their shareholders and advertisers earlier, and therefore being a mere instrument of the evil capitalists plutocrats profiting from the sweat and blood of the common worker (or something like that).



close but no cigar

not shareholders but yes, to advertisers and also to the whims of whoever pulls the strings. In a large organisation that almost always means to the wealthy few: capitalists

anyone who doesn't investigate the decision makers in an organisation and what their motivations are; deserves to be fucked over by them

however, given that being a capitalist doesn't necessarily mean you support capitalism, there are exceptions.

capitalist and capitalism are quite different words. a capitalist is merely someone with great wealth invested somewhere.
capitalism is a system in which the control of economies is placed in the hands of the wealthy. Some wealthy support socialism and applaud real democracy where control is in the hands of the people.

Yes, i'm quite sure that statement will blow a few fuses around here

[idleidolidyll]

I see I'm in demand again, a string of quote/replies to my earlier posts await my reply

unfortunately I don't fit into many of your cosy delusions of 'socialist' and have a full day of work (an extra long day in fact)

I'll be back in due course to no doubt chuckle at the sheer ignorance of some and the intelligent wit of others.

[idleidolidyll]

That depends on YOUR definition of a full day. You know your posts smack of ''my wedding tackle is bigger than yours''. That puts a finger on it.

No, the initial slur was made by you and you have no fucking idea what i do or how many hours i work

however, a recent study reported in New Scientist confirms that men who work 60 hours or more per week have a significantly greater incident of heart attack than those who work 40 hours or less.

i'm not interested in dying rich but young, i'm interested in living a long happy life

[Street Gerbil]

Because communism is NOT socialism; that's why they have different names: duh!
Please, enlighten us, was it socialism or communism in USSR? Inquiring minds want to know.


Mind you, if you're easily sucked in by right wing propaganda I could understand how you might be so deluded.
I suppose... Either that, or the fact of growing up in USSR and having years of first hand experience. Like studying Marxism - Leninism at school and having to compare the theory and its implementation every fakken day of the week.

[Finn]

Because communism is NOT socialism; that's why they have different names: duh!

Perhaps someone should tell Labour this. They appear very confused, much like yourself.

[Finn]

A job? I have a great job, you're probably just a jealous loser and my offspring has a job and two fine kids. Your asinine attack on my family exposes you as the loser I knew you to be but keep it up: I give back as good or better than I receive. Pissants don't bother me at all.

And living in Manukau producing kids makes you a success? Fuck, they didn't tell me that in University.

[Sanx]

not shareholders but yes, to advertisers and also to the whims of whoever pulls the strings. In a large organisation that almost always means to the wealthy few: capitalists


The BBC - in their biggest market - don't have advertisers. They carry no adverts. Ever. As for who pulls the strings? Unless you happen to live in an anarcho-communist commune, there's always a boss.

In this instance, the boss - the Director General - is appointed by the government. This particular Labour government appointed the last one too, and the government then staging one of the most public, yet bullshit-filled, inquiries into the actions of the BBC over the reported claims of a scientist - who then died - was an indication of how much the government resents the existence of a national broadcasting body that is genuinely independent.

Of course, any broadcasting body's output is going to be influenced by those working for it. My uncle, a fanatical pro-Jewish Zionist who loves berating me on the evils of Islam, endlessly slates the BBC for being pro-Palenstian. I've also read the reports from Palentinan activists about how the BBC skews stories in favour of the Israelis. I've had right-wing arch-Conservatives in the UK complain in debates about the BBC's pro-Labour stance, and long-time Labour supporters complain about how the BBC favours the Tories. Personally, I take this as a good sign. If both sides think that a media organisation is biased in favour of the other, it's a good indication that said media organisation is playing it pretty much straight down the middle.

[Robert Taylor]

No, the initial slur was made by you and you have no fucking idea what i do or how many hours i work

however, a recent study reported in New Scientist confirms that men who work 60 hours or more per week have a significantly greater incident of heart attack than those who work 40 hours or less.

i'm not interested in dying rich but young, i'm interested in living a long happy life

And therefore spreading your socialist poison to all and sundry ignoramuses.

Do you want a 30 hour working week for good measure perhaps...

[Sanx]

And therefore spreading your socialist poison to all and sundry ignoramuses.

Do you want a 30 hour working week for good measure perhaps...

I've been enjoying the benefits of a zero-hour working week for the past 2.5 weeks. The money's lousy but the quality of life's great!

Robert - can you advise if I can make a pre-emptive claim on ACC for a vital bit of safety equipment - for example, that TTX shock you showed me at Taupo on Friday. Having now discovered the joys of being bone-idle, I don't want to go back to work, but I fail to see why I should let that little matter prevent me from having all the toys. Surely it's now the State's responsibility to pay for them for me?

[Street Gerbil]

If both sides think that a media organisation is biased in favour of the other, it's a good indication that said media organisation is playing it pretty much straight down the middle.
False dichtomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichtomy), mon ami. Let's say I want to make other people think that you are an alcoholic. The man on the radio keeps reporting that you are starting your every day with beer. You believe that the news man is biased because *YOU* know for a fact that you never drink alcohol before 6pm. I believe that the news man is biased because I expect him to report that you start your day with absinth rather than beer. So we both believe that the news program is biased, only is your beer drinking habit truly an accurate middle ground between abstinence and absinth?

[Ocean1]

capitalist and capitalism are quite different words. a capitalist is merely someone with great wealth invested somewhere.
capitalism is a system in which the control of economies is placed in the hands of the wealthy.

How the hell can they be quite different, they've got precisely the same root: Capital. According to dictionary.com your dreaded bogy man is nothing more than a person who invests capital in a business. His own fucking capital I might add, not the results of someone else’s enterprise and effort. Further: Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


Some wealthy support socialism

Not for long they don't, socialism is not a system that allows sustainable individual wealth in any form. You may cite individuals but we both know that's meaningless, idiots of that flavour are rare but they can be found. The acid test is a comparison of socialist states with others, ideally with similar cultural and ethnographic roots. Like, say the GDR and FRG, compare away.

You continue to present utilitarian systems as moral solutions, Socialism fails utterly to protect the rights of the individual, and therefore is completely ineffective in supporting the rights of the collective. Capitalism is the only system to protect the rights of the individual.

You’re innate paranoia of business is rooted in the single misapprehension that property is the inalienable right of everyone. Wake up, it’s the direct result of productive effort, the production of which is contingent on individual rights, specifically the right to the results of that effort. The political rights of the collective community can feasibly be only the protection of that and other individual rights, not the right to wealth itself.

[scumdog]

Mehh, socialism? - alive and well and working in NZ.

Result? - a lot of people have no ambition to be capitalists, in fact no ambition 'cos the State pays for their chosen lifestyle, handed to them on a plate.

On the other hand in a true Communist society how long would that lifestyle last???

Maybe we should take a page out of another 'socialist' country in the past which only allowed one child per family - that way they would be free from raising kids and could work! Mwahahahahah!!! - and the famliy benefit pay-out would be less too - woohoo!.

[Robert Taylor]

No, the initial slur was made by you and you have no fucking idea what i do or how many hours i work

however, a recent study reported in New Scientist confirms that men who work 60 hours or more per week have a significantly greater incident of heart attack than those who work 40 hours or less.

i'm not interested in dying rich but young, i'm interested in living a long happy life

Its time then that you were as transparent as I am about what I do, spill the beans! BTW, frequent use of expletives usually comes from those with a poor command of the English language. You dissapoint me on that score because in spite of your views ( that we can happily disagree on ) you have demonstrated a very good command of the language.

[Robert Taylor]

Mehh, socialism? - alive and well and working in NZ.

Result? - a lot of people have no ambition to be capatalists, in fact no ambition 'cos the State pays for their chosen lifestyle, handed to them on a plate.

On the other hand in a true Communist society how long would that lifestyle last???

Maybe we should take a page out of another 'socialist' country in the past which only allowed one child per family - that way they would be free from raising kids and could work! Mwahahahahah!!! - and the famliy benefit pay-out would be less too - woohoo!.

Then we should all vote Green ( red in the middle ), all stop work, live off the Government beacuse they have this magic pool of money ( from somewhere ) , smoke lots of drugs and pretend everything is alllllllllllllllllllllll okay!

[Ocean1]

Mehh, socialism? - alive and well and working in NZ.

Result? - a lot of people have no ambition to be capatalists, in fact no ambition 'cos the State pays for their chosen lifestyle, handed to them on a plate.

Most people aspire to "have stuff". The difference is simply the proposed source of "stuff".

'Scuse, it's way past Wednesday, I have to go acquire sufficient stuff to meet the aspirations of Hulin'z lot.

[TDC]

That depends on YOUR definition of a full day. You know your posts smack of ''my wedding tackle is bigger than yours''. That puts a finger on it.

Just a finger!!!

[MisterD]

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.



A BBC online poll? So KM won it because most of the voters live in Highgate and recognised the name from the fact that he's in their cemetary. :laugh:

[davereid]

Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy).

Hmm, that explains why I am enslaved to the state. The only resource in my business is me. So, for the greater good, control of me must be vested in the state.

At least I've got it sorted now !

[Robert Taylor]

Hmm, that explains why I am enslaved to the state. The only resource in my business is me. So, for the greater good, control of me must be vested in the state.

At least I've got it sorted now !

Thats right, and dont dare to disagree! Youll get your hand smacked and be called a nasty thieving capitalist.

[Robert Taylor]

Thats right, and dont dare to disagree! Youll get your hand smacked and be called a nasty thieving capitalist.

Or verbally vilified by some great long diatribe out of a Sociliast comic book!

[Usarka]

I think everyone in the country who earns over $80,000 should embrace the welfare system, quit their jobs or close up shop and go on the dole.

Wonder how long the country would last.

Just a beer fuelled (monteiths black tonight) thought before i hit the hey (sick(sic)).....

[98tls]

Hmm, that explains why I am enslaved to the state. The only resource in my business is me. So, for the greater good, control of me must be vested in the state.

At least I've got it sorted now ! And as you already have two bikes for gods sake dont:nono:go buying a third as that would reek of success leaving you open to all forms of abuse.

[idleidolidyll]

Really busy at present and no time to reply to the plethora of quotes i have or read the thread through but hope to be back later today and poke a few eyes out.

In the meantime for those who think this government is a failure on economic policy:

Poverty - gaps finally closing

5:00AM Friday October 19, 2007
By Simon Collins (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=135)

Gaps between rich and poor New Zealanders have finally started to close.
Ethnic groups and regions that have lagged behind for years are starting to share in economic growth.
The Ministry of Social Development's annual Social Report shows shrinking gaps between Maori and Europeans in important areas such as education and income.
And unemployment has come down more quickly in poor regions such as Northland, Gisborne and Hawkes Bay than in rich regions such as Auckland and Wellington.
The ministry's policy manager of social outcomes, Conal Smith, said groups that had suffered most in the recession of the early 1990s were now profiting from prosperity.
"We are in the middle of one of the longest periods of sustained prosperity since the end of World War II, so you'd be a little bit surprised if this wasn't happening," he said.
"For Maori, we see improvements in almost everything we can compare except obesity, and in that case Maori have become only slightly more obese and the population as a whole has got quite a bit more obese.


"The gaps are closing in life expectancy, employment, unemployment and housing affordability."
Not all the figures are so straightforward. The gap between average Maori and European life expectancy widened by 2.4 years between 1985 and 1997, as Maori suffered more from job losses in previously state-owned industries such as forestry.
The gap has narrowed since the mid-90s, but by only 31 weeks, so Europeans still live relatively longer than Maori now than they did 20 years ago.
Maori unemployment has dropped dramatically, from a peak of 25.4 per cent in 1992 to 7.9 per cent last year.
But the European unemployment rate has also dropped, from 7.9 per cent to 2.7 per cent, so the gap has narrowed only slightly.
Maori are more clearly catching up in median incomes, which rose by 15 per cent for Maori between 1997 and last year against 13 per cent for Europeans.
And the proportion of Maori leaving school with at least the final-year qualification of level 2 in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has jumped from 28.8 per cent to 36.7 per cent in the past three years - up from 50 per cent to 56 per cent of the European rate.
The four regions showing the fastest growth in incomes between the 2001 and 2006 censuses were all in the traditionally slower-growing South Island.
Otago's median income was up 15.5 per cent, Southland's 15.2 per cent, Canterbury's 14.4 per cent and Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast 13.5 per cent.
The two richest regions, Wellington and Auckland, were under the 11.8 per cent national average increase.
The proportion of people in work grew fastest in Northland, which in 2001 had the lowest employment rate.
The Bay of Plenty, which had the second-lowest employment rate five years ago, had the second-biggest jobs increase.
Wellington and Auckland lifted their employment rates by only about half or less of the national increase.

[scumdog]

In the meantime for those who think this government is a failure on economic policy:

Poverty - gaps finally closing

5:00AM Friday October 19, 2007
By Simon Collins (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=135)

Gaps between rich and poor New Zealanders have finally started to close.
Ethnic groups and regions that have lagged behind for years are starting to share in economic growth.

Mehh, probably because the broken-arses are getting better hand-outs and tax-breaks etc....

[Clockwork]

On one of the news programs last night there was a story about a new conveinevce meal omlet/pizza of some description that has recently been launched in the US. The angle of the story was that this product was seriously large and almost certainly less than wholesome in its nutritional value. Basically the were just revisiting the "Up-size me" debate.

Toward the end of the item it was mentioned that there is currently a bill in progress in the US known as the Cheeseburger bill (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3500388.stm) which is designed to stop people suing the fast food industry for their obesity problems.

It seems to me that businesses/capitalism object to Governments intervening in the market place to protect society but seem to be quite happy to lobby for such intervention to protect their own interests.

Smells a bit hypocritical to me.

[Ocean1]

It seems to me that businesses/capitalism object to Governments intervening in the market place to protect society but seem to be quite happy to lobby for such intervention to protect their own interests.

Smells a bit hypocritical to me.

Dude I’m never sure if you’re taking the piss or not.

The US is the most litigiously frivolous culture on the planet, a fact which has fuck all to do with either business or capitalism. Any system that awards punitive damages with more than 5 zeros attached against a microwave oven manufacturer because their manual failed to explicitly preclude the drying of poodles needs all the help it can get.

Hypocritical? It can’t possibly beat blaming someone else for what you shove in your own mouth, no matter how attractive the producer makes it.

[Clockwork]

As I see it, the US litigation process is nothing more than an extension of their free market approach to life. If the Government wont intervene in the market then the only protection their society has is redress through the courts. It appears to me that this has pretty much been the approach until now and it can be argued that that it is a perfectly reasonable means of moderating the excesses of the market. "Don't have Government compulsion to make safer products, simply be prepared to wear the litigious consequences of making/selling dangerous crap!" Heck, it may be the ultimate in democracy!

I'm not saying that I agree with this method of control but I can see its merits.

If a litigant can fund the case and find a Lawyer who can make the case why shouldn't they be allowed to give it a try? Are we now saying legislative intervention in the market is not always a bad thing?

[avgas]

Poverty is bullshit. Its a figure calculated outside of real life.
There should be 0% poverty in NZ, otherwise what is the point of having a benefit system.
The only reason we have poverty in NZ is because we have morons here. Therefore a survey on Poverty in NZ is more a survey of basic animal instinct intelligence. We all need food, water and shelter - morons seem to think they can live without. Good thing dogs don't.

[Ocean1]

As I see it, the US litigation process is nothing more than an extension of their free market approach to life. If the Government wont intervene in the market then the only protection their society has is redress through the courts. It appears to me that this has pretty much been the approach until now and it can be argued that that it is a perfectly reasonable means of moderating the excesses of the market. "Don't have Government compulsion to make safer products, simply be prepared to wear the litigious consequences of making/selling dangerous crap!" Heck, it may be the ultimate in democracy!

I'm not saying that I agree with this method of control but I can see its merits.

If a litigant can fund the case and find a Lawyer who can make the case why shouldn't they be allowed to give it a try? Are we now saying legislative intervention in the market is not always a bad thing?

The legislation you posted is an attempt to minimise unreasonable market expectations, more a comment on the inability of consumers to take responsibility for their own actions than an indictment of supply quality.

Any business that aims to be around for any length of time generally doesn’t produce crap on purpose. There are smash and grab merchants out there though, and it’s appropriate for government to take measures to control them on behalf of consumers.

I’ve watched our system change from a standards based control system to something not far removed form the legislative bullshit you see in the states, only here it’s OSH and ACC generated bullshit. Instead of setting minimum quantifiable standards for so suppliers know where the goalposts are the approach now is “do what you want, but if anyone gets hurt it’s automatically the manufacturer/suppliers fault”.

[MisterD]

And unemployment has come down more quickly in poor regions such as Northland, Gisborne and Hawkes Bay than in rich regions such as Auckland and Wellington.

That's probably got a lot to do with the fact that you can't move to "poor" regions and expect to claim a benefit anymore...

[SPman]

Poverty is bullshit. Its a figure calculated outside of real life.
There should be 0% poverty in NZ, otherwise what is the point of having a benefit system.
The only reason we have poverty in NZ is because we have morons here. Therefore a survey on Poverty in NZ is more a survey of basic animal instinct intelligence. We all need food, water and shelter - morons seem to think they can live without. Good thing dogs don't.

Its a bit like being poor - I think of it as a state of mind! I've spent large chunks of my life with fuck all money, but, I didn't consider myself poor - just fecking broke! Poverty is real, - it's how you react to and handle it, that counts. Poverty of mind and spirit, combined with limited or no money is the killer, and money won't necessarily fix that!

[Ocean1]

Its a bit like being poor - I think of it as a state of mind! I've spent large chunks of my life with fuck all money, but, I didn't consider myself poor - just fecking broke! Poverty is real, - it's how you react to and handle it, that counts. Poverty of mind and spirit, combined with limited or no money is the killer, and money won't necessarily fix that!

Ohyez, definitely an attitude, rather than an income. Many "capitalists" are in debt up to their eyeballs and have an income below the minimum adult wage, they’re risking their all against their projected success, the epitome of capitalism. They’re poor in every monetary sense, but they’re content to take that risk, and they're motivated to make it work.

I am also familiar with the lassitude going hand in hand with your “poverty of spirit”, it can be a fucking struggle sometimes for most of us to make the effort, to believe in yourself. Some never feel any different, but handouts are not the help they need.

[Robert Taylor]

Really busy at present and no time to reply to the plethora of quotes i have or read the thread through but hope to be back later today and poke a few eyes out.

In the meantime for those who think this government is a failure on economic policy:

Poverty - gaps finally closing

5:00AM Friday October 19, 2007
By Simon Collins (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=135)

Gaps between rich and poor New Zealanders have finally started to close.
Ethnic groups and regions that have lagged behind for years are starting to share in economic growth.
The Ministry of Social Development's annual Social Report shows shrinking gaps between Maori and Europeans in important areas such as education and income.
And unemployment has come down more quickly in poor regions such as Northland, Gisborne and Hawkes Bay than in rich regions such as Auckland and Wellington.
The ministry's policy manager of social outcomes, Conal Smith, said groups that had suffered most in the recession of the early 1990s were now profiting from prosperity.
"We are in the middle of one of the longest periods of sustained prosperity since the end of World War II, so you'd be a little bit surprised if this wasn't happening," he said.
"For Maori, we see improvements in almost everything we can compare except obesity, and in that case Maori have become only slightly more obese and the population as a whole has got quite a bit more obese.


"The gaps are closing in life expectancy, employment, unemployment and housing affordability."
Not all the figures are so straightforward. The gap between average Maori and European life expectancy widened by 2.4 years between 1985 and 1997, as Maori suffered more from job losses in previously state-owned industries such as forestry.
The gap has narrowed since the mid-90s, but by only 31 weeks, so Europeans still live relatively longer than Maori now than they did 20 years ago.
Maori unemployment has dropped dramatically, from a peak of 25.4 per cent in 1992 to 7.9 per cent last year.
But the European unemployment rate has also dropped, from 7.9 per cent to 2.7 per cent, so the gap has narrowed only slightly.
Maori are more clearly catching up in median incomes, which rose by 15 per cent for Maori between 1997 and last year against 13 per cent for Europeans.
And the proportion of Maori leaving school with at least the final-year qualification of level 2 in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has jumped from 28.8 per cent to 36.7 per cent in the past three years - up from 50 per cent to 56 per cent of the European rate.
The four regions showing the fastest growth in incomes between the 2001 and 2006 censuses were all in the traditionally slower-growing South Island.
Otago's median income was up 15.5 per cent, Southland's 15.2 per cent, Canterbury's 14.4 per cent and Nelson/Marlborough/West Coast 13.5 per cent.
The two richest regions, Wellington and Auckland, were under the 11.8 per cent national average increase.
The proportion of people in work grew fastest in Northland, which in 2001 had the lowest employment rate.
The Bay of Plenty, which had the second-lowest employment rate five years ago, had the second-biggest jobs increase.
Wellington and Auckland lifted their employment rates by only about half or less of the national increase.

Hey Idlelefty!

Youve got more than a few eyes to poke out, as I see it youve had your eyes poked out more than anyone on this forum thread, akin to a scene from Hitchcocks ''The Birds''

And I think you should wake up and smell your ( red ) roses! Its easy to reduce unemployment when;

1) In spite of this poxy Government we have had the best period of commodity prices for many a year. Mores the pity we didnt have the continuation of a National led Government ( preferably with Act ) to truly capitalise on it.

2) When over 700 Kiwis a week are being scared away by your lefty mates and this will increase with tax cuts over the Tasman.

3) When you extend welfare / state dependency to include the middle class ( working for families ) Interpretation, over tax them in the first instance and then give some of it back, spending further tax money with blatant propaganda to show how wonderful and benevolent the Government is. You know there is something perverse in that, especially when something like 50,000 extra civil servants have been created to ''co-ordinate'' the Politburos ''money go round'' re-elective schemes. And by definition these extra civil servants are paid beneficiaries.

ETC ETC. The best and most effective socialism is not to over-tax people in the first place, thereby reducing state dependency. Thereby also reducing the number of state employees required, so that they can otherwise engage in activities rather more productive.

If you check my previous posts you will be the first to note that I have concerns about ''unchecked capitalism'', that there should be a number of controls in line with a social safety net that helps people up, rather than creating a lifestyle out of it.

Socialism depends on poverty / high cost of living so that people depend on the state. And the wa....s that are running this country have DELIBERATELY perpetuated this situation. Your even loonier further leftwards mates would embellish this tragedy even further.

I therefore await the inevitability of your signature lefty backlash. Ho hum,yawn. But I do admire your courage in the face of overwhelming numbers that dont subscribe to your diatribes. And pray tell please what you do for a living, unless of course you prefer the anonymity of Zaitsev ( spelling? ) the famed Red army sniper.

[Robert Taylor]

Its a bit like being poor - I think of it as a state of mind! I've spent large chunks of my life with fuck all money, but, I didn't consider myself poor - just fecking broke! Poverty is real, - it's how you react to and handle it, that counts. Poverty of mind and spirit, combined with limited or no money is the killer, and money won't necessarily fix that!

So have I, I have never been poor as such but spent a good many years with very very little discretionary income. But I never ever expected or asked for a handout and have worked and worked to build up my business, that is not a unique situation. Now that I will be employing people that is one small example of capitalism in action.

If we had Government with policies that were small business friendly we would have more people engaged in truly productive and meaningful activities rather than being dependent on the state.

[Winston001]

idleidolidyll - I can't decide whether you are trolling or completely genuine in your political views.

Assuming you are genuine, can I respectfully suggest that you'll get far more traction with your arguments if you desist from flaming and the occasional abusive post.

What I'm getting at is I'd happily debate with you but when you get drawn into profanity or emotional responses, it becomes difficult to respect other rational posts from you. Tarred with the same brush as it were. Unfair but we all form impressions of each other and it colours our responses - or lack of same.

There is a long-term member here who is communist and I never fail to respect his intellect. I disagree with him but it doesn't matter, his views are sincere and worth reading.

Believe me, taking the higher moral ground and avoiding emotional terms will only gain you respect. And maybe even some grudging converts!

[98tls]

Communist and intellect :eek5:Not something i would normally agree with but would genuinely like to be swayed..got a link ?

[idleidolidyll]

That's probably got a lot to do with the fact that you can't move to "poor" regions and expect to claim a benefit anymore...

perhaps so; another example of corporate pandering overcoming relationships with family and friends.
If all my family lives in the Hokianga and I have lived in Auckland for the last 5 years, why CAN'T I go back and be with those I know and love?

[idleidolidyll]

Hey Idlelefty!

Youve got more than a few eyes to poke out, as I see it youve had your eyes poked out more than anyone on this forum thread, akin to a scene from Hitchcocks ''The Birds''

And I think you should wake up and smell your ( red ) roses! Its easy to reduce unemployment when;

1) In spite of this poxy Government we have had the best period of commodity prices for many a year. Mores the pity we didnt have the continuation of a National led Government ( preferably with Act ) to truly capitalise on it.

2) When over 700 Kiwis a week are being scared away by your lefty mates and this will increase with tax cuts over the Tasman.

3) When you extend welfare / state dependency to include the middle class ( working for families ) Interpretation, over tax them in the first instance and then give some of it back, spending further tax money with blatant propaganda to show how wonderful and benevolent the Government is. You know there is something perverse in that, especially when something like 50,000 extra civil servants have been created to ''co-ordinate'' the Politburos ''money go round'' re-elective schemes. And by definition these extra civil servants are paid beneficiaries.

ETC ETC. The best and most effective socialism is not to over-tax people in the first place, thereby reducing state dependency. Thereby also reducing the number of state employees required, so that they can otherwise engage in activities rather more productive.

If you check my previous posts you will be the first to note that I have concerns about ''unchecked capitalism'', that there should be a number of controls in line with a social safety net that helps people up, rather than creating a lifestyle out of it.

Socialism depends on poverty / high cost of living so that people depend on the state. And the wa....s that are running this country have DELIBERATELY perpetuated this situation. Your even loonier further leftwards mates would embellish this tragedy even further.

I therefore await the inevitability of your signature lefty backlash. Ho hum,yawn. But I do admire your courage in the face of overwhelming numbers that dont subscribe to your diatribes. And pray tell please what you do for a living, unless of course you prefer the anonymity of Zaitsev ( spelling? ) the famed Red army sniper.

actually it's quite likely to be BECAUSE of this government. Those whacky right wingers refuse to believe it I know but the current government has managed to both help business AND help the disadvantaged in society.

The really dumb inference in your post is that migration to Aussie will cease or reverse just because National may be elected: hilarious shit! Much of the migration is from immigrants to NZ who had no intention of ever staying here in the first place; they merely saw NZ citizenship as a back door into Aussie. Others will continue to go just because we live so far from anywhere but of course suckers and propagandists like you will always suggest that it's BECAUSE of a left wing government regardless of the facts: you're nothing without fallacy.

Recognition of the needs of the 'middle class' are merely sensible. Many so called middle class folk are struggling too as free market capitalism sends our livelihoods and profits off shore with fuck all regard to the damage that does to NZ society. The mean income for a family in NZ is only $%000 more than the mean for an individual. Think about it; if that's the case, our so called 'middle classes' with a wife and 2 kids to look after are just as vulnerable to predatory foreign rape as the poor are and generally they have higher levels of debt and therefore exposure.

Socialism doesn't depend on poverty at all; that's merely more of your self centred right wing bullshit propaganda. Modern Socialism is a system integrating capitalist monetary systems into socially beneficial policies that ensure that the worst of capitalism is held at bay and the disadvantaged have equal opportunity in life.

The oft repeated 'personal responsibility' whine from you self centred greedy ACT supporters ignores the fact that the original society in NZ was collectivist and that a great deal of the population is collectivist or comes from collectivist societies. The individualist point of view is used as a propaganda tool to divide and conquer allowing more and more destruction of the social system to the extent that it would be unrecoverable as per the USA where the same bullshit was used alongside tax cuts, increasing powers for corporations etc to destroy collective social systems and replace them with systems based on greed, self serving individualism and wanton abuse.

[idleidolidyll]

If we had Government with policies that were small business friendly we would have more people engaged in truly productive and meaningful activities rather than being dependent on the state.

so whatever you do, don't vote national. they'll sell NZ out to big business in the blink of an eye as they have done in the past

[Hitcher]

so whatever you do, don't vote national. they'll sell NZ out to big business in the blink of an eye as they have done in the past

An excellent idea. Instead let's hand over the running of a multi-billion dollar economy to some commie meat-raffle organisers and some tree-huggers that nobody actually voted for.

[Pussy]

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, or had good ethics taught to me by my parents, but, Idle, there is only ONE way to pull a rabbit out of a hat.... you have to put one in it first

[Grahameeboy]

so whatever you do, don't vote national. they'll sell NZ out to big business in the blink of an eye as they have done in the past

What is wrong with that.

NZ is a small Country globally and it's location does not help it to promote overseas.

In many case, NZ is the first in a field but does not have the structure or contacts to promote the idea overseas.

Is it not good to have foreign investment to help promote what NZ is good at?

Scenario's

1. NZ business has great idea but domestic sales is not enough and inability to promote and build relationships overseas is detrimental to it's future.
2. NZ business has great idea. Spotted by overseas investor who has overseas connections / know how and is able to build the business both domestically and globally.

In case of 2, Business more than likely stay a NZ based one, paying taxes, providing job's, employement - spending power, which has a domino effect on other businesses who may grow etc etc.

Why are we so against overseas investment? We talk about how great NZ is, "Made in New Zealand"......take the effect the America's Cup had on boat building as a simple example.....yet we want to keep it for ourselves rather than capitalise on what we are good at.

Now this is a simple and less educated look on things but NZ is too small to self invest.

[SPman]

What is wrong with that.

Were you here for the last lot of sellouts, started by an extreme right wing Labour government, then carried on by the Nats - strip down cut price giveaways to their mates, who then asset stripped them and sold on the husks!
1000 million dollar handouts to companies that fucked up because they were greedy and incompetent (BNZ).
Private companies are one thing - they will be bought and sold as and when, I have no worry with that, but, major public assets and infrastructure, should not be sold of to a "profit driven and to hell with the public" company that couldn't care less about anything except the bottom line.
A country is a living organism, not a pile of figures on a ledger sheet. It is infinite shades of grey, not black and white. Just as you get rot and disease from too much "leftie greeny" influence, so you get raging infectious sores, from too much rampant right wing robotism!
Too much on one side or the other, it all turns to a big pile of poo. It is possible to balance both sides of the equation, not that many governments achieve it, if any, but I reckon the current Labour government has done it better than a National government under Keys and his cronies would do.

[Robert Taylor]

idleidolidyll - I can't decide whether you are trolling or completely genuine in your political views.

Assuming you are genuine, can I respectfully suggest that you'll get far more traction with your arguments if you desist from flaming and the occasional abusive post.

What I'm getting at is I'd happily debate with you but when you get drawn into profanity or emotional responses, it becomes difficult to respect other rational posts from you. Tarred with the same brush as it were. Unfair but we all form impressions of each other and it colours our responses - or lack of same.

There is a long-term member here who is communist and I never fail to respect his intellect. I disagree with him but it doesn't matter, his views are sincere and worth reading.

Believe me, taking the higher moral ground and avoiding emotional terms will only gain you respect. And maybe even some grudging converts!

And he continues to emotively pour forth his expletives from what he considers the moral high ground, from his convenient position of semi anonymity.

[Robert Taylor]

perhaps so; another example of corporate pandering overcoming relationships with family and friends.
If all my family lives in the Hokianga and I have lived in Auckland for the last 5 years, why CAN'T I go back and be with those I know and love?

Because the world actually DOESNT owe you a living! Now, whilst the sewers of the world pour forth their filth I must continue working, millions on welfare depend on me.

[Ocean1]

Were you here for the last lot of sellouts, started by an extreme right wing Labour government, then carried on by the Nats - strip down cut price giveaways to their mates, who then asset stripped them and sold on the husks!
1000 million dollar handouts to companies that fucked up because they were greedy and incompetent (BNZ).
Private companies are one thing - they will be bought and sold as and when, I have no worry with that, but, major public assets and infrastructure, should not be sold of to a "profit driven and to hell with the public" company that couldn't care less about anything except the bottom line.
A country is a living organism, not a pile of figures on a ledger sheet. It is infinite shades of grey, not black and white. Just as you get rot and disease from too much "leftie greeny" influence, so you get raging infectious sores, from too much rampant right wing robotism!
Too much on one side or the other, it all turns to a big pile of poo. It is possible to balance both sides of the equation, not that many governments achieve it, if any, but I reckon the current Labour government has done it better than a National government under Keys and his cronies would do.

I agree, for different reasons.

The “sell-outs” were a reaction to the simple fact that the services in question were hideously expensive compared to private equivalents both here and overseas. That was largely because of poor management performance and very high labour numbers and costs., the former I suspect mostly because political interference has ever been a problem for government owned commercial enterprise, and the latter because of institutional inflexibility and inefficiency. Both were apparently considered unfixable, job for life, remember? I feel it was a mistake to biff the baby with the bathwater though, we should have retained ownership of the assets and contracted out the operational requirements.

You’re right, a country is a living organism, culturally and socially, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it’s economic health. If socialists see capitalists as heartless it’s possibly because they recognise that there’s a limit to the cultural and social problems able to be addressed commercially. A true balanced opposite of socialism in your equation would have every social resource put at the disposal of those who make the economy successful. That’s not capitalism, that’s a pre-industrial European “ideal”. Modern capitalists genuinely do represent the only workable middle ground, they simply want to be left with enough of the resources they’ve generated to remain viable. Socialists, by comparison seem to have no problem crippling the economy in order to support those who fail to contribute anything to it, a deathwish made real.

I do get sick of the over-the-top corporate phobia, commercial interests are normally very transparent, they need to make money to survive. So what? That’s exactly the same behaviour seen in those who take advantage of a social support system they contributed nothing to. It’s not difficult to write a contract that deals with any short-changing of services. If a supplier takes advantage of a poorly written service contract I’d find fault with the idiot that wrote it, the same fault I see in the idiocy that is our completely unsustainable social policy.

I doubt National will sell off any significant infrastructure, anything left in the public domain is so run down as to be worthless. Time, perhaps to realise that the piggy bank is empty. The contents have gone not to feed corporate greed, or to maintain the machinery required to re-fill it, but to feed a blind ideology that’s main weapon is individual greed. In the meantime our infrastructure has deteriorated from world class to third world joke, and our ability to rebuild it is threatened most by the current administration.

[BIGBOSSMAN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

[Ocean1]

..........

WRONG. Couldn't be more wrong, utterly incorrect. As wrong as wrong could concevably be, ....

[idleidolidyll]

Truly dumb shit from National:

"Labour is going to use the extra money it has to bribe voters"

"By the way, we're going to give you all tax cuts............"

Are you clowns seriously taken in by this bullshit?

ROTFLMFAO!

[idleidolidyll]

An excellent idea. Instead let's hand over the running of a multi-billion dollar economy to some commie meat-raffle organisers and some tree-huggers that nobody actually voted for.

from someone who should know better we get a paragraph full of cliched fallacy

pardon me while i roll around on the floor laughing my fucking arse off...............

[idleidolidyll]

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, or had good ethics taught to me by my parents, but, Idle, there is only ONE way to pull a rabbit out of a hat.... you have to put one in it first

is there a point to that or were you just interested in seeing your post online?

[scumdog]

Truly dumb shit from National:

"Labour is going to use the extra money it has to bribe voters"

"By the way, we're going to give you all tax cuts............"

Are you clowns seriously taken in by this bullshit?

ROTFLMFAO!


Who cares? - I'm alright Jack.

[Pussy]

That's rich coming from an attention seeker like yourself

[scumdog]

perhaps so; another example of corporate pandering overcoming relationships with family and friends.
If all my family lives in the Hokianga and I have lived in Auckland for the last 5 years, why CAN'T I go back and be with those I know and love?

No reason at all - just as long as you get a job.

And hopefully persuade those you know and love to get a job if they don't already have one and should.

[idleidolidyll]

What is wrong with that.

NZ is a small Country globally and it's location does not help it to promote overseas.

and that means what? that we should prostitute our nations policies to big international businesses in order to sell some of what we make?

In many case, NZ is the first in a field but does not have the structure or contacts to promote the idea overseas.

I repeat my first reply

Is it not good to have foreign investment to help promote what NZ is good at?

No, for the most part it's not because that foreign investment comes with too many heavy strings attached. Those companies cut costs by cutting jobs and they send profits offshore. The nett effect is a reduction in real buying power for real New Zealanders and government policies hijacked by foreign interests

Scenario's

1. NZ business has great idea but domestic sales is not enough and inability to promote and build relationships overseas is detrimental to it's future.

Actually, Kiwis by and large are better than most other nations at promotion and building relationships. As for sales overseas; ask the Tindall Foundation for help, ask Jim for a business development loan. I don't see the point in selling out your country just so a few rich people can get a bit richer by driving up interest rates and driving down real incomes.

2. NZ business has great idea. Spotted by overseas investor who has overseas connections / know how and is able to build the business both domestically and globally.

Tell them to fuck off and do it yourself. They will eventually screw you over anyway.

In case of 2, Business more than likely stay a NZ based one, paying taxes, providing job's, employement - spending power, which has a domino effect on other businesses who may grow etc etc.

Your guesswork is just that and quite unfounded. The persistant direction is for ever larger internationals to own everything and for local companies to be forced out of business. I'd much prefer government assistance for NZ companies rather than foreign rape.

Why are we so against overseas investment? We talk about how great NZ is, "Made in New Zealand"......take the effect the America's Cup had on boat building as a simple example.....yet we want to keep it for ourselves rather than capitalise on what we are good at.

To a small degree there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is that it rarely comes without the above mentioned strings attached that damage NZ society and our incomes in the medium to long term. Why else would amerikkka still have so much protectionism in IT'S system?

Now this is a simple and less educated look on things but NZ is too small to self invest.

No it's not. Please take a look at Singapore for an example.

[davereid]

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, or had good ethics taught to me by my parents, but, Idle, there is only ONE way to pull a rabbit out of a hat.... you have to put one in it first

It means that you can't just make the minimum adult wage $15 and expect it to work. If its that easy, why not make it $30 or $60 ?

Mr. Mugabe has found that you can't just halve prices to stop inflation.

There is only one way to be better off. And its to be more productive.

All labour has done is screw up small business and wallow in self-satisfaction.

[idleidolidyll]

Were you here for the last lot of sellouts, started by an extreme right wing Labour government, then carried on by the Nats - strip down cut price giveaways to their mates, who then asset stripped them and sold on the husks!
1000 million dollar handouts to companies that fucked up because they were greedy and incompetent (BNZ).
Private companies are one thing - they will be bought and sold as and when, I have no worry with that, but, major public assets and infrastructure, should not be sold of to a "profit driven and to hell with the public" company that couldn't care less about anything except the bottom line.
A country is a living organism, not a pile of figures on a ledger sheet. It is infinite shades of grey, not black and white. Just as you get rot and disease from too much "leftie greeny" influence, so you get raging infectious sores, from too much rampant right wing robotism!
Too much on one side or the other, it all turns to a big pile of poo. It is possible to balance both sides of the equation, not that many governments achieve it, if any, but I reckon the current Labour government has done it better than a National government under Keys and his cronies would do.


Damn straight!

[idleidolidyll]

And he continues to emotively pour forth his expletives from what he considers the moral high ground, from his convenient position of semi anonymity.

what a pile of bullshit Robert; I've said many times who I am and there's a photo of me on my profile page. I've stated where I've worked and what I've done.

If you're gonna post bullshit please try to make it intelligent bullshit

as for emotive posts, many of my posts have references and are research based. On the other hand, most of your posts are emotive crap.

[idleidolidyll]

Because the world actually DOESNT owe you a living! Now, whilst the sewers of the world pour forth their filth I must continue working, millions on welfare depend on me.


yawn, more right wing cliched propaganda: get some new material, your hackneyed old crap is boring.

why the fuck SHOULD anyone be tied into a capitalist system that they don't support or have faith in? .............because whitey says so and he holds all the power..........

[BIGBOSSMAN]

WRONG. Couldn't be more wrong, utterly incorrect. As wrong as wrong could concevably be, ....

Hmmm, I don't think so...

[idleidolidyll]

I
You’re right, a country is a living organism, culturally and socially, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it’s economic health. If socialists see capitalists as heartless it’s possibly because they recognise that there’s a limit to the cultural and social problems able to be addressed commercially.

Oh dear, the generalisations based on hearsay and propaganda flow again. What socialsit government in NZ has ever ignored the economy? None, that's just utter nonsense.
No, socialists see SOME capitalists as heartless because they are heartless. They care nothing for humanity beyond themselves, or if they're lucky, themselves and their immediate family and fellow capitalists.

"A true balanced opposite of socialism in your equation would have every social resource put at the disposal of those who make the economy successful. That’s not capitalism, that’s a pre-industrial European “ideal”."

Yes it is, that is in fact the very definition of capitalism: the means of production controlled exclusively by the capitalists (the few with the most money). It isn't outdated at all and we have only to look to the USA to see that it is currently practiced and has even been enshrined in legislation giving big corporates more power than all the electorte combined.

Modern capitalists genuinely do represent the only workable middle ground, they simply want to be left with enough of the resources they’ve generated to remain viable.

No, capitalists represent capitalists, that's the definition of one. The middle ground is represented by representative democracy, an institution that capitalism only works with when it has no choice. If available, it will happily choose dictatorships and despost who are more easily corrupted to force through its ultimately destructive policies.

Socialists, by comparison seem to have no problem crippling the economy in order to support those who fail to contribute anything to it, a deathwish made real.

More total bullshit as easily evidenced by the fact that the current government has grown business and at the same time provided more aid and assistance to those in need or without opportunity. Try to be a little more credible, the economy is in better health than it has been for fucking years and that's happened under a three term left centre government.

I do get sick of the over-the-top corporate phobia, commercial interests are normally very transparent (rubbish, they are normally secretive and only transparent when forced to be so), they need to make money to survive. So what? That’s exactly the same behaviour seen in those who take advantage of a social support system they contributed nothing to.

No, it's quite different behaviour because those corporates abuse democracy by circumventing government policy to get their way. They are far more powerful than people and governments role should always be to protect citizens from the abuse of capitalists because that's their fallback position.


It’s not difficult to write a contract that deals with any short-changing of services. If a supplier takes advantage of a poorly written service contract I’d find fault with the idiot that wrote it, the same fault I see in the idiocy that is our completely unsustainable social policy.

No, it's not difficult. However, when the power is in the hands of the corporate, the contract is written by them and the worker can take it or fuck off. That's the damage the Employment Contracts Act did.

I doubt National will sell off any significant infrastructure, anything left in the public domain is so run down as to be worthless. Time, perhaps to realise that the piggy bank is empty. The contents have gone not to feed corporate greed, or to maintain the machinery required to re-fill it, but to feed a blind ideology that’s main weapon is individual greed. In the meantime our infrastructure has deteriorated from world class to third world joke, and our ability to rebuild it is threatened most by the current administration.

National will privatise social policy and those providing it will be or be bought by foreign corporations. That will mean that we will pay higher costs and our taxes will go directly to supporting foreign elites and capitalists who have no stake in our country other than profits. Society will suffer as a result.
THAT is how National will sell us out this time around: by cutting taxes so much we won't have any independent social policy.

[idleidolidyll]

No reason at all - just as long as you get a job.

And hopefully persuade those you know and love to get a job if they don't already have one and should.

"get a job"

why? what's wrong with living off the land?

[idleidolidyll]

It means that you can't just make the minimum adult wage $15 and expect it to work. If its that easy, why not make it $30 or $60 ?

why tell me? i've never said you could.
however, without a minimum wage we'd be back to serfdom in no time or working for tips because our employers could take advantage of us and profit from us without a reasonable exchange.

Mr. Mugabe has found that you can't just halve prices to stop inflation.

yawn

There is only one way to be better off. And its to be more productive.

One way? "better off"?
Think deeper; ANOTHER way would be to invest in creation of high tech industry or develop our own home grown technology or information economy.
as for better off, your idea of better off seems pretty limited to me. in my world, better off means happier and more content. That doesn't necessarily mean work harder, longer or at all.

All labour has done is screw up small business and wallow in self-satisfaction.

actually National screwed small business even more, they sold small business out to big business and they intend to continue pandering to the BRT and foreign interests. Under Labour it has grown by about 9%. If you really think National will make it all better I'm happy for them to get in so I can laugh at you in a few years time when they fuck it all up again.

[idleidolidyll]

what has national actually offered for policy besides "we'll do the same as labour except we'll cut taxes too"?

that's truly wish and a prayer nonsense and if you are that easily taken in by...........well by nothing, you DESERVE national to fuck you over.

[davereid]

Well, the increases in the minimum adult wage haven't helped my employees. I layed them off and bought a pick-and place machine. Problem solved, its more productive, doesn't whine, go on strike, call in sick or steal stock. Or vote.

Your "Think deeper; ANOTHER way would be to invest in creation of high tech industry or develop our own home grown technology or information economy." idea assumes that we have some natural skill or ability in that area. Sorry, we don't. We are no better at software than pakistanis. We are no better at stuffing PCBs than the chinese. Like most nations, we have some very good engineers, and we make some great products, but labours "picking winners" has been a dismal failure.

[Winston001]

.........idea assumes that we have some natural skill or ability in that area. Sorry, we don't. We are no better at software than pakistanis. We are no better at stuffing PCBs than the chinese. Like most nations, we have some very good engineers, and we make some great products, but labours "picking winners" has been a dismal failure.

Yep. The "knowledge economy" just hasn't happened. Kids show little interest in science, engineering and technology and our politicians aren't leading them in those directions. Frankly I cannot understand why.

The tiger economies of Asia are far better at tech than us. The quality and work ethic puts Kiwis to shame. We are good at innovation but there simply isn't enough of it.

Like it or not, NZ is a romantic green South Pacific paradise for the rest of the world but we have very little that they need. So the "clean green" brand is all we have going for us as a sales image and we'd better be careful with that.

[Robert Taylor]

yawn, more right wing cliched propaganda: get some new material, your hackneyed old crap is boring.

why the fuck SHOULD anyone be tied into a capitalist system that they don't support or have faith in? .............because whitey says so and he holds all the power..........

''Us and them, us and them, us and them, us and them. The peoples flag is brightest red'' Man, the socialist comics you read are fully indoctrinating. Either that or you are smoking something really powerful.

[SPman]

I doubt National will sell off any significant infrastructure, anything left in the public domain is so run down as to be worthless. Bullshit!
Time, perhaps to realise that the piggy bank is empty. The contents have gone not to feed corporate greed, or to maintain the machinery required to re-fill it, but to feed a blind ideology that’s main weapon is individual greed. The same ideology that drives corporate business! In the meantime our infrastructure has deteriorated from world class to third world joke, Have you been in the "third world" lately? - compared to most, our infrastructure is not a joke, by any means.and our ability to rebuild it is threatened most by the current administration.You mean rebuild it, but in the image of what? The USA? Great Britain?

Ah...New Zealanders doing what they do best - slagging of their own country whilst bleating the grass is greener on the other side of the fence and wishing someone will do something about it - just not themselves, just like all the other woolly inhabitants!

[Robert Taylor]

what has national actually offered for policy besides "we'll do the same as labour except we'll cut taxes too"?

that's truly wish and a prayer nonsense and if you are that easily taken in by...........well by nothing, you DESERVE national to fuck you over.

The problem is your comrades in left field have so suceeded in indoctrinating great swathes of the population with Socialist expectant BS. National would become unelectable were it to preach what really needs to be done.

Indoctrination starts early. My youngest daughter chose Margaret Thatcher as her subject when required to do a project on influential women. The teacher actually made scathing comments not about the quality of the essay project but about the chosen subject matter. Okay, I prompted / suggested Maggie but the point is schools are by and large NOT apoloitical. And I see that commo Maharey is going to be spreading his left wing dogma through Massey University soon.

We probably need 10 years of undemocratic Government in NZ ( not unlike we have now ) to reset the goalposts and get some work ethic and discipline back into this country.

[Robert Taylor]

what has national actually offered for policy besides "we'll do the same as labour except we'll cut taxes too"?

that's truly wish and a prayer nonsense and if you are that easily taken in by...........well by nothing, you DESERVE national to fuck you over.

You know, I have some socialist friends just as fortrightly righteous and one eyed as your offerings. A common denominator is that they are just as liberal with the expletives. Is there research material supporting my observation?

Dont get me wrong, I am sure you are quite a nice guy behind all the left field bravado!

[scumdog]

"get a job"

why? what's wrong with living off the land?

Great, so we all get by living off the land, making flax Draggin jeans, pulling doctors and dentists etc out of our arses when/as needed............getting them from where?.. and...well you know the rest you big troll.

[Ocean1]

Well, the increases in the minimum adult wage haven't helped my employees. I layed them off and bought a pick-and place machine. Problem solved, its more productive, doesn't whine, go on strike, call in sick or steal stock. Or vote.

Indeed, similar story here. I could use a couple of good techies right now, but I'm fucked if I'll accept the associated admin overhead that goes with them. They're pretty thin on the ground anyway, we haven't been training many for a while.

Your "Think deeper; ANOTHER way would be to invest in creation of high tech industry or develop our own home grown technology or information economy." idea assumes that we have some natural skill or ability in that area. Sorry, we don't. We are no better at software than pakistanis. We are no better at stuffing PCBs than the chinese. Like most nations, we have some very good engineers, and we make some great products, but labours "picking winners" has been a dismal failure.

We do produce innovators, we just don't support them well. In fact it's hard to imagine how we could contrive a more difficult environment for them. Unless you borrowed the money to buy that machine you paid a bunch of tax on income you never had. Feel encouraged did you?


Yep. The "knowledge economy" just hasn't happened. Kids show little interest in science, engineering and technology and our politicians aren't leading them in those directions. Frankly I cannot understand why.

The tiger economies of Asia are far better at tech than us. The quality and work ethic puts Kiwis to shame. We are good at innovation but there simply isn't enough of it.

They do promote a high level of tech skills, but I believe we retain an element of the high degree of innovation long attributed to Kiwis. We could fix our tech skill shortage overnight, we could can student loans and use the same budget to fully fund those courses which provide actual value to the country. Good wee rant… http://nbr.infometrics.co.nz/made-in-new-zealand--dumbed-down-degrees_214.html

[mstriumph]

Originally Posted by idleidolidyll
yawn, more right wing cliched propaganda: get some new material, your hackneyed old crap is boring.

why the fuck SHOULD anyone be tied into a capitalist system that they don't support or have faith in? .............because whitey says so and he holds all the power..........


''Us and them, us and them, us and them, us and them. The peoples flag is brightest red'' Man, the socialist comics you read are fully indoctrinating. Either that or you are smoking something really powerful.

just for a moment, gentlemen, consider the thought that fostering divisions such as yours in the general populace is considered a powerful tool for control and domination by the parlimentary elite

personally i believe we should barricade them all into their gilt-edged parlimentary ivory towers and set fire to them ............

just one gentle,sweet-natured pacifist's opinion :dodge:

[Ocean1]

just for a moment, gentlemen, consider the thought that fostering divisions such as yours in the general populace is considered a powerful tool for control and domination by the parlimentary elite

personally i believe we should barricade them all into their gilt-edged parlimentary ivory towers and set fire to them ............

Fek, your right, it's THEM. Bastards, orta sort 'em once and fer all, let's take no chances, we need to NUKE dem suckers.




Or vote for someone else.

[idleidolidyll]

AMAZING!

These self proclaimed capitalists complaining that socialists are lazy and that they themselves are always busy, seem to have a shit load more time free to post here than I do.

Is that bullshit I smell or just right wing propaganda?

This busy socialist will be back when he's not so busy...............

[idleidolidyll]

''Us and them, us and them, us and them, us and them. The peoples flag is brightest red'' Man, the socialist comics you read are fully indoctrinating. Either that or you are smoking something really powerful.

so far all you've shown me robert is that you're long on propaganda and insults and bereft of anything substantial besides whining about a 'left' you seem unable to actually define without resort to uninformed crappola.

i'm still yawning

[idleidolidyll]

Well, the increases in the minimum adult wage haven't helped my employees. I layed them off and bought a pick-and place machine. Problem solved, its more productive, doesn't whine, go on strike, call in sick or steal stock. Or vote.

Your "Think deeper; ANOTHER way would be to invest in creation of high tech industry or develop our own home grown technology or information economy." idea assumes that we have some natural skill or ability in that area. Sorry, we don't. We are no better at software than pakistanis. We are no better at stuffing PCBs than the chinese. Like most nations, we have some very good engineers, and we make some great products, but labours "picking winners" has been a dismal failure.

of course you did; capitalists don't actually give a rats arse for their employees and will chuck em out on the street in the name of a few extra bucks at the drop of a hat.

that's why we need socialists

national destroyed employee training with the Employment Contracts Act and it hasn't recovered. Whilst whining about socialists it's fucking hilarious listening to capitalists demanding that government subsidise or pay for outright, the training of their staff.

BTW: We do have a home grown ability in information technology but successive governments listen only to the BRT and not to small businesses who suffer to the profit of foreigners and massive corporations that don't really need a hand.

Watch that get worse under national.

[idleidolidyll]

Yep. The "knowledge economy" just hasn't happened. Kids show little interest in science, engineering and technology and our politicians aren't leading them in those directions. Frankly I cannot understand why.

The tiger economies of Asia are far better at tech than us. The quality and work ethic puts Kiwis to shame. We are good at innovation but there simply isn't enough of it.

Like it or not, NZ is a romantic green South Pacific paradise for the rest of the world but we have very little that they need. So the "clean green" brand is all we have going for us as a sales image and we'd better be careful with that.

maybe you should go read up a bit on Jim Andertons work in recent years

[idleidolidyll]

Great, so we all get by living off the land, making flax Draggin jeans, pulling doctors and dentists etc out of our arses when/as needed............getting them from where?.. and...well you know the rest you big troll.

"all"????????

leaping to conclusions and putting words unsaid into my mouth again? yawn

if some people want to opt out of the capitalist system, more power to them.
doctors and nurses in some places are happy to work for barter; that's the problem isn't it, no tax take.

i've already said i believe people should work for the dole

[idleidolidyll]

We do produce innovators, we just don't support them well. In fact it's hard to imagine how we could contrive a more difficult environment for them. Unless you borrowed the money to buy that machine you paid a bunch of tax on income you never had. Feel encouraged did you?



They do promote a high level of tech skills, but I believe we retain an element of the high degree of innovation long attributed to Kiwis. We could fix our tech skill shortage overnight, we could can student loans and use the same budget to fully fund those courses which provide actual value to the country. Good wee rant… http://nbr.infometrics.co.nz/made-in-new-zealand--dumbed-down-degrees_214.html


ahh, cut education again. take the costs of training away from corporates and taxpayers and make individuals pay themselves. Sounds good in theory but of course it is known that staff retention is terrible and that people are likely to change their occupation 4-5 times in their working life. Your simplistic idea doesn't examine the underlying issues, it just plasters over the problem and tries to hide it.

of course it's also well known that most of our leading businessmen and almost all our politicians were educated for free by the state...................

[idleidolidyll]

Still the same I see; lots of whining and a few suggestions for policies of greed but no care or humanity shown for the abuses inherent in capitalism or for those so affected.

the capitalists here SAY they're compassionate but when looking at their discussions, it's clear they're only about what THEY can get for themselves and fuck the rest.

[Grahameeboy]

Were you here for the last lot of sellouts, started by an extreme right wing Labour government, then carried on by the Nats - strip down cut price giveaways to their mates, who then asset stripped them and sold on the husks!
1000 million dollar handouts to companies that fucked up because they were greedy and incompetent (BNZ).
Private companies are one thing - they will be bought and sold as and when, I have no worry with that, but, major public assets and infrastructure, should not be sold of to a "profit driven and to hell with the public" company that couldn't care less about anything except the bottom line.
A country is a living organism, not a pile of figures on a ledger sheet. It is infinite shades of grey, not black and white. Just as you get rot and disease from too much "leftie greeny" influence, so you get raging infectious sores, from too much rampant right wing robotism!
Too much on one side or the other, it all turns to a big pile of poo. It is possible to balance both sides of the equation, not that many governments achieve it, if any, but I reckon the current Labour government has done it better than a National government under Keys and his cronies would do.

I was probably in the UK...........so guess things could be different now.

I was talking about overseas investment etc, not domestic.

Yes this Country is a living organism, however, organisms need food and if the food is not available close by they need to go further afield for alternatives.

The number of times there has been a hint of an overseas interest and everyone panics, the old croanies make a noise and the foreign investor's run away.............not a great advert.

[Grahameeboy]

Still the same I see; lots of whining and a few suggestions for policies of greed but no care or humanity shown for the abuses inherent in capitalism or for those so affected.

the capitalists here SAY they're compassionate but when looking at their discussions, it's clear they're only about what THEY can get for themselves and fuck the rest.

I agree, I see lots of whining on both sides and you know what in 50 years this will not change.

It's funny but in my years I have seen many Govt's come and go, and you know what it makes no difference to life........life is still good and it is what we make of it and Capitalism, Socialism does not affect that, we allow Capitalism, Socialism etc and we just add the fuel....shame we do not realise that and enjoy being an organism instead of having orgasms...

[Finn]

i'm still yawning

Ah. I think I've found your problem. Yawning is an involuntary reflex caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Judging by your posts, I suspect that you're a constant yawner.

[Grahameeboy]

Ah. I think I've found your problem. Yawning is an involuntary reflex caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Judging by your posts, I suspect that you're a constant yawner.

I actually agree with you.........(wheres my pills)................:2thumbsup

[davereid]

Don't mention Oxygen... the socialists will find a way to tax it.

[Clockwork]

Don't mention Oxygen... the socialists will find a way to tax it.

Only if you're getting more than your fair share!! :msn-wink:

[Robert Taylor]

Still the same I see; lots of whining and a few suggestions for policies of greed but no care or humanity shown for the abuses inherent in capitalism or for those so affected.

the capitalists here SAY they're compassionate but when looking at their discussions, it's clear they're only about what THEY can get for themselves and fuck the rest.

That is a conclusion you would like to beleive but I for one practice capitalism AND carry people along with me. It is entirely possible to have right wing views and social compassion, but ardent socialists perpetuate the myth that it is impossible.

[Ocean1]

Ah. I think I've found your problem. Yawning is an involuntary reflex caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Judging by your posts, I suspect that you're a constant yawner.

No no no, it's caused by an excess of C02. Socialists breath far too much for their own good, (and everyone else’s). Didn’t you spot the causal link between the rise in socialism and the onset of global warming? We need to round 'em all up and plant trees over 'em.

[idleidolidyll]

That is a conclusion you would like to beleive but I for one practice capitalism AND carry people along with me. It is entirely possible to have right wing views and social compassion, but ardent socialists perpetuate the myth that it is impossible.

Boo Hoo!

When I entered this discussion under another thread name a bunch of vile right wing know nothings were spewing propaganda and invectives against socialists and disadvantaged people. These losers however, couldn't even accurately define the most important words they were using so I decided to take them to task.

Now the whining is about me attacking your opinions and misconceptions: tuff fukken luck. The whole glasshouse is laughing at you.

As for the thinly disguised attempt to suggest you are charitable because you "carry people along with you", spare me the bullshit. Employment is an exchange and they carry YOU along just as much. It aint fukken charity; you're in business making a profit and I seriously doubt that social and humanitarian issues are your first concern.

Self delusion is the most pathetic form of the ailment.

As for my opinions, observations and statements on the motivations of right wing conservatives, I stand by them all. By and large they are on the button and that much is evidenced by the glee that Mr Reid showed us here at replacing employees with a machine.

[idleidolidyll]

Ah. I think I've found your problem. Yawning is an involuntary reflex caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain. Judging by your posts, I suspect that you're a constant yawner.

well done finn, mindless prattle is about your limit and once more you've given us all a prime example of your inadequacies

[idleidolidyll]

Don't mention Oxygen... the socialists will find a way to tax it.

More accurately: Don't mention oxygen; the arsewipe capitalists will find a way to patent it and sell it to us all

[idleidolidyll]

Cheers losers; I accept your mindless personal attacks as your admissions of defeat.

sucks being you

[Finn]

well done finn, mindless prattle is about your limit and once more you've given us all a prime example of your inadequacies

I think KB is well aware of my inadequacies however, this thread is about you and the strange little world you live in.

I find it hilarious that angry socialists are almost always failures in life and feel they have to blame the rest of us for their pitiful existence.

Get over yourself mate. You're nothing special, just an angry, bitter old man.

[davereid]

Employment is an exchange and they carry YOU along just as much. It aint fukken charity; you're in business making a profit and I seriously doubt that social and humanitarian issues are your first concern....As for my opinions, observations and statements on the motivations of right wing conservatives, I stand by them all. By and large they are on the button and that much is evidenced by the glee that Mr Reid showed us here at replacing employees with a machine.

There was no "glee" about it. Its just simple maths. It's the electronics industry.

Far from being the "hi-tech knowledge wave" that most imagine, it's actually just basic manufacturing, generally low paid assembly work, with a low level of skill.

Like most "high - tech" stuff, what you actually have is a small group of people with the high tech knowledge. They do the design, write the software and move on to the next project.

The manufacturing is low tech. As long as the correct component is soldered in the correct hole, the job is done. The worker needs few skills, will never need to know how the product works, and by and large doesn't care.

Here lies the problem. Those who belong to the skilled group get well paid, have a wide choice of employers, and over a working career design millions of dollars worth of products.

But those who belong to the unskilled group are in trouble. It's easy to claim the capitalist is the source of those problems, it makes a nice flag, and III seems to like waving it.

The reality is, that the unskilled are always at the bottom of the heap in ANY system,and there is actually no way of changing that. (Other than voting them into parliament).

Socialists like to argue that the minimum adult wage is one of the mechanisims to keep the unskilled a bit better off.

They are right ! But it also has the effect of pricing the commodity (the labour of the unskilled) off the market. The effect of this depends on just how well the economy is going. If its dancing along on the back of high commodity prices, then we don't really see a big hit, there are other unskilled jobs to be had, so there are few tears.

When the economy is slow, we see a rise in unemployment. We deal with this by taxes - either directly to pay the dole, or indirectly by using tarrifs to keep the old sock factory in Norsewood or where-ever going.

Long term, both of these methods will fail, as all they do is reduce market size. In other words the sock maker can stay in business, as long as he only wants to sell his socks in NZ. They will be too expensive to sell overseas.

I don't know what the solution is, although I know what won't work.

Sadly this thread has just turned into a slinging off session, as there are some good thinkers here, so I doubt this will be the right place to find those answers.

So do businesses buy machines to replace workers because they hate workers ? Of course not.

But our products will not sell if they are not seen as good value by customers.

This is actually the mechanisim by which we as a country become richer. We make a product. We invest our profits back in our product to make them better quality, higher featured, cheaper or all three. We see it all the time. Todays cars have air-bags, CD players, ABS etc etc and seldom break down. In 1975 a radio and heater were options, and in real terms the car cost much more.

This "deflation" is actually us becoming more wealthy.

Thats why simple tools like taxes, tarrifs, and minimum adult wages, however well intentioned work against us.

Long rant this time ! :done:

[Hitcher]

Cheers losers; I accept your mindless personal attacks as your admissions of defeat.

Whereas I accept yours as being nothing more than mindless.

[Robert Taylor]

I think KB is well aware of my inadequacies however, this thread is about you and the strange little world you live in.

I find it hilarious that angry socialists are almost always failures in life and feel they have to blame the rest of us for their pitiful existence.

Get over yourself mate. You're nothing special, just an angry, bitter old man.

Yes, ''black and white'' or ''my way is the only way'' rhetoric rather embellished with expletives for crude emphasis. Sad. I still maintain that ideally there can be ''moderated capitalism'' with social conscience. But social conscience that is a hand up rather than the lifestyle vote catching varieties, preying on the truly productive in society with vicious taxes and levies.

If this guy was a true to his beleif socialist he would get rid of his KTM to help the needy. Does KTM stand for ''Kapitalist Teutonic Motorcycle'' or more likely in this case ''Karl Thinkalot Marx'' ?

I can genuinely understand some of the points Idlelefty is getting at and also beleive in equality of opportunity. But also beleive that the environment should reward rather than penalise hardwork, and to also create TRUE productive employment rather than the smoke and mirrors stuff that is happening.

[Cajun]

This thread has a been a great debate on all sides showing their point of view.
But insults are starting to creep in.
Can you please keep these on check please

Thanks

[scumdog]

Never thought I'd said anything insulting - so where did me post go????:confused::scratch:

[Usarka]

Never thought I'd said anything insulting - so where did me post go????:confused::scratch:

You were insulting our intelligences bahahahahaha just kidding please don't shoot......

[steveb64]

You're having a laugh, aren't you?

The Japanese had basically surrendered and the atomic bomb was dropped because America wanted to ensure it was a power to be feared in the post-war world. It worked, too and led to nuclear proliferation ... nice work assholes.

Ask yourself this - if the aim was to procure a surrender would it have been necessary for the Americans to do anything other than merely prove they had the bomb? Maybe flatten a forest somewhere in Japan to prove a point. But, no, another 200,000 people had to die so ... I dunno. Don't know why, to be honest.

Here: read, be educated, become appalled:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Dave

Another theory re the bomb(s) and Japan - was that Russia was heading eastward really fast - in strong force - and America was already pissed at missing out on a big chunk of Germany - so the only way to get the Japs to surrender quickly - before the Russians got there - was to nuke the place...

America was really worried about Russia moving in...

Besides - they had to see what would happen to a live population when they set them off - particularly as they had two different tech bombs (U235 and Plutonium)...

[Street Gerbil]

Another theory re the bomb(s) and Japan - was that Russia was heading eastward really fast - in strong force - and America was already pissed at missing out on a big chunk of Germany - so the only way to get the Japs to surrender quickly - before the Russians got there - was to nuke the place...

America was really worried about Russia moving in...

Besides - they had to see what would happen to a live population when they set them off - particularly as they had two different tech bombs (U235 and Plutonium)...
If this is true (and I seriously doubt that), Japs must be really grateful for those bombs. Under Ruskies, Japan today would have been another North Korea or Cambodia.

[steveb64]

If this is true (and I seriously doubt that), Japs must be really grateful for those bombs. Under Ruskies, Japan today would have been another North Korea or Cambodia.

Having been a house dad for the last few years, I've seen more TV than most - lots of History and Doco channel... Can't remember the exact program now, but they reckoned Stalin had a large force somewhere near Vladivostok, moving down the coast.

The Japs were able to surrender because they had taken those two big hits - meant they (or the Emperor) wern't losing face - which they would have if the bombs had just been dropped on some trees... ...and you're right - if Stalin had taken Japan - they'd have been well screwed. They sure wouldn't have got as good terms as they got from the Americans - probably helped them make their minds up...

[idleidolidyll]

I think KB is well aware of my inadequacies however, this thread is about you and the strange little world you live in.

I find it hilarious that angry socialists are almost always failures in life and feel they have to blame the rest of us for their pitiful existence.

Get over yourself mate. You're nothing special, just an angry, bitter old man.

ahh, there ya go with the usual propaganda and ill informed ignorance again.

that's ok though, the smaller the mind of the poster, the less ignorant bullshit i feel the need to refute

[idleidolidyll]

Whereas I accept yours as being nothing more than mindless.

and yours have been typically empty rhetoric offering nothing but hearsay and regurgitated propaganda

are you afraid to offer logical debate or are you just inadequate?

hang on...................YAAWWNN!

[scumdog]

and yours have been typically empty rhetoric offering nothing but hearsay and regurgitated propaganda.............YAAWWNN!

Sorta like reading The Little Red Book eh???

[Joni]

sorta like ground hog day :thud:

[Mr Merde]

I started watching this thread thinking that there would be some fairly robust debate and conversation.

Originall there was and I stayed tuned.

Lately it has just turned into a pissing contest with a lot of "my dicks bigger than yours" thown in.

Deleted thread from watch list as I just cant be bother listening to a bunch of blowhards trying to blow their own trumpet and attempt to outdo each other in the subtle art of "fuckwitism".

Bye

[scumdog]

I started watching this thread thinking that there would be some fairly robust debate and conversation.

Originall there was and I stayed tuned.

Lately it has just turned into a pissing contest with a lot of "my dicks bigger than yours" thown in.

Deleted thread from watch list as I just cant be bother listening to a bunch of blowhards trying to blow their own trumpet and attempt to outdo each other in the subtle art of "fuckwitism".

Bye

Me too.

But it's fun - just like when I use to throw stones at the retards when I went past them as I was on the way to primary school..:doh:

[idleidolidyll]

Finally, a relatively intelligent argument instead of a piece of silly junk mail.

That deserves a response in kind


There was no "glee" about it. Its just simple maths. It's the electronics industry.

Sounded like glee from where i sat reading it but OK, i'll read on.

Far from being the "hi-tech knowledge wave" that most imagine, it's actually just basic manufacturing, generally low paid assembly work, with a low level of skill.

Like most "high - tech" stuff, what you actually have is a small group of people with the high tech knowledge. They do the design, write the software and move on to the next project.

The manufacturing is low tech. As long as the correct component is soldered in the correct hole, the job is done. The worker needs few skills, will never need to know how the product works, and by and large doesn't care.

Here lies the problem. Those who belong to the skilled group get well paid, have a wide choice of employers, and over a working career design millions of dollars worth of products.

and within that explanation lies part of the problem with capitalism and indeed, with the problem in NZ as well.
relying on cheap labour because of mechanisation means that the business itself is of less social value to the voters of the nation: it makes great profits for the capitalist but is of far less benefit to a larger number of people.
Likewise, the reduction of employee requirements to menial unskilled tasks because of mechanisation lowers the required skill levels of employees who are then fixed more easily to a serf like existence because they don't have the time to become educated, employers won't assist with education and the government charges high fees for that 'privelage' even though education is constantly identified as one of the leading reasons for low productivity in this country.

But those who belong to the unskilled group are in trouble. It's easy to claim the capitalist is the source of those problems, it makes a nice flag, and III seems to like waving it.

yes, they ARE in trouble and that is the cognitive dissonance of the skilled worker/high productivity issue. How CAN we have high productivity if that relies on education but provision of said education is refused by employers and unafforable to workers except if they are prepared to leave the country to pay off their loans? The fact is that the wide gap between the haves and have nots creates a situation that benefits only those already wealthy people and creates a large number of permanently uneducated and underpaid people (great for businesses like yours apparently).

The reality is, that the unskilled are always at the bottom of the heap in ANY system,and there is actually no way of changing that. (Other than voting them into parliament).

Actually the solution can be seen in the very words you use: UPSKILL THEM and they won't be unskilled.

Socialists like to argue that the minimum adult wage is one of the mechanisims to keep the unskilled a bit better off.

They are right ! But it also has the effect of pricing the commodity (the labour of the unskilled) off the market. The effect of this depends on just how well the economy is going. If its dancing along on the back of high commodity prices, then we don't really see a big hit, there are other unskilled jobs to be had, so there are few tears.

No, that's not quite what we argue. What we actually argue is that minimum wages go some way toward mitigating the fact that capitalism preys on the weak and both forces wages down while at the same time making those on low wages compete against each other for the crumbs from the tables of the wealthy.
The major benefit in highly profitable business that pays minimum wages is to the owner. It is of far less benefit to the nation, to society and to the people. As such it would be better for those kinds of business to exist in low wage nations and for government to concentrate on upskilling NZ employees so they can focus more on building a REAL knowledge economy with far greater remuneration on average for all.
The race to the bottom is a stupid one but that's basically what unskilled manufacturing businesses are about.

When the economy is slow, we see a rise in unemployment. We deal with this by taxes - either directly to pay the dole, or indirectly by using tarrifs to keep the old sock factory in Norsewood or where-ever going.

Of course. Capitalism has always relied on the manipulation and control of the labour market. Given that fact, Government responsibility is to help the victims of a system that preys on the weak not help those who are easily able to look after themselves: the wealthy.

Long term, both of these methods will fail, as all they do is reduce market size. In other words the sock maker can stay in business, as long as he only wants to sell his socks in NZ. They will be too expensive to sell overseas.

Life is not all about markets and money. That's the capitalist fantasy and delusion.
Does being wealthier make people less likely to be depressed? Does it make people happier? Do large income gaps create conditions that increase crime rates? Should Government serve people or corporations? Should it be responsible for the defence of the wealthy who are more than capable of looking after themselves or should it be more focussed on helping those abused by others and those born into situations that would mean effective serfdom for the rest of their lives?
The upshot is that a focus on the economy that diverts attention and assistance away from those most in need will inevitably result in a system similar to the US where corporations have steadily been given more power and rights than people, where corporations OWN politicians and political promises are bullshit from start to finish, where corporate ideals mean that companies like Nike seek ways to circumvent laws in order to make higher profits, where pharmaceutical companies don't research cures because these are self defeating in terms of ongoing profits. Instead they research pain management, illness management and other ways of maintaining the illness AND the addiction to their drugs.

I don't know what the solution is, although I know what won't work.

No, I believe you just 'know' what YOU don't want and care little for others.

Sadly this thread has just turned into a slinging off session, as there are some good thinkers here, so I doubt this will be the right place to find those answers.

Yes it did. Notice from this that when you post a non abusive post, you get a non abusive reply? That's always been my 'MO'.
Ocean deserves credit for (largely) posting relatively intelligent debate that is almost free of abuse. I might disagree with his ideas but I respect him for his style.

So do businesses buy machines to replace workers because they hate workers ? Of course not.

Good grief, what nonsense. That's called a False Dilemma and yes, it's a fallacy argument.

But our products will not sell if they are not seen as good value by customers.

Perhaps if NZ hadn't been so damn quick to 'lead the world' in dropping protection for our home grown businesses you might be able to create viable 'Buy NZ' campaigns.
Other countries, including the richest economies, are much smarter. They KNOW that protection is necessary and that their own economies were BUILT on protectionism.
There's no point at all in being the only real open economy in the world.

This is actually the mechanisim by which we as a country become richer. We make a product. We invest our profits back in our product to make them better quality, higher featured, cheaper or all three. We see it all the time. Todays cars have air-bags, CD players, ABS etc etc and seldom break down. In 1975 a radio and heater were options, and in real terms the car cost much more.

Again, If richer doesn't make you happier or more contented, what is its point? Wealth for the sake of wealth is a stupid argument. In addition, what use is a high average wealth if the average is merely inflated by a massive rich/poor gap and fantastically wealthy people at the top using their economic power to effectively become neo-monarchs who own and manipulate people to their own ends?

This "deflation" is actually us becoming more wealthy.

Thats why simple tools like taxes, tarrifs, and minimum adult wages, however well intentioned work against us.

Nope, they PROTECT us from those who would abuse for personal gain.

Long rant this time ! :done:

[idleidolidyll]

This thread has a been a great debate on all sides showing their point of view.
But insults are starting to creep in.
Can you please keep these on check please

Thanks

Thankyou moderator. I'm not gonna lie and plead innocence here, I replied in kind and often gave more than I got. I'm as guilty of abuse as any.

However, I'm more than happy to have a rational non abusive debate if my opposition can do the same.

The very point of my entry was to counter existing abuse of half or more of the population of this country who vote left of centre. When I arrived the abuse towards 'socialists' and 'communists' (even though few were able to define those terms accurately) was incredibly offensive.

The really funny part was that once 'they' started receiving the same kind of posts back, they got all indignant and started complaining about it.

Oh dear, people living in glass houses etc..............

I promise to be a good boy though...........as long as my opposition also does or the moderators intervene to keep it all seemly.

Contrary to what seem to be 'their' beliefs, I don't wish to 'steal' from capitalists that which they have; I merely wish to see that those without power are not abused by those with power. THAT is what socialism is about.

[Street Gerbil]

When I arrived the abuse towards 'socialists' and 'communists' (even though few were able to define those terms accurately) was incredibly offensive.

If so, why don't you bring the light of knowledge to masses and fulfill my original request to define socialism and communism in layman's terms. One phrase for each, please. Back in the old Soviet Union every 5th grader was able to do that.

[idleidolidyll]

If so, why don't you bring the light of knowledge to masses and fulfill my original request to define socialism and communism in layman's terms. One phrase for each, please. Back in the old Soviet Union every 5th grader was able to do that.

Oh but I did.

I used the very heart of the difference.

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by capitalists (those with wealth).

Socialism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by the people (the voters in a democracy).

someone subsequently posted a description that waffled about the tactics used but basically at it's core said the same thing even though they said it 'proved I was wrong'.

If you check a non partisan dictionary you'll find I'm pretty much right.

It seems you missed my previous post giving the definitions.

[MisterD]

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by capitalists (those with wealth).

It is also the system in which you can gain money, power and influence by being skilful and productive - a meritocracy.



Socialism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by the people (the voters in a democracy).


Or in fact, by those elected by the people, so to gain power you need to convince people to vote for you - a bullshitocracy?

[Street Gerbil]

Oh but I did.
I used the very heart of the difference.

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by capitalists (those with wealth).

Socialism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by the people (the voters in a democracy).


That's a failing answer. I am sorry, pal, but you really have to do better than that. Of course, mind you, I studied the definitions of both from a very partisan source, the textbook called "Introduction to Marxism-Leninism for 5th grade" published by the Ministry of Education of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but I truly hope that for you it qualifies as an unbiased material. So again, layman's terms. One phrase for each, explaining the meaning of "socialism" and "communism". Remember, I ask you for a very simple explanation, geared towards schoolkids. Please, give it your best shot.

[imdying]

published by the Ministry of Education of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but I truly hope that for you it qualifies as an unbiased material. So again, layman's terms. One phrase for each, explaining the meaning of "socialism" and "communism". Remember, I ask you for a very simple explanation, geared towards schoolkids.I don't know much (anything ?) about communism vs capitalism, but I wouldn't thought that his definition was reasonably succinct and simple enough for any school kid of an age where knowing the difference was relevant?

Going on from idleidolidyll's definition (because I don't see that debate coming to a conclusion any time soon!), I do wonder if perhaps both of them are a crap idea anyway in modern society. I mean, we know capitalism is raping the planet quite convincly, but communism seems to rely on the goodness of man too much.

Perhaps capitalism has served it's purpose (propelling us to a reasonable state of tech?), and communism whilst seemingly pretty fair and huggy, just ain't realistic (with the state of man being what it is). I assume they both had their place once upon a time (people obviously thought they were good ideas at the time), but perhaps what we need is a new ism' to satisfy the way the world is now?

[Street Gerbil]

I don't know much (anything ?) about communism vs capitalism, but I wouldn't thought that his definition was reasonably succinct and simple enough for any school kid of an age where knowing the difference was relevant?
Actually, I failed 3i's answer for two reasons:
a) He answered the wrong question, since I asked him about socialism and communism, rather than capitalism.
b) Because 3i's answer is fundamentally incorrect.
To give you an analogy in a motorcycle world, his answer is equivalent to saying that definition of a Kawasaki motorcycle is a neon-green color. Yes, some Kwakas may be neon green, but only a few of them, moreover, that's not what make them Kwakas.

[imdying]

Point A is fair (I assume), but surely the depth of answer that would satisfy B couldn't be accomplished given 'one short phrase that a school kid could understand'?

[davereid]

Capitalism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by capitalists (those with wealth).
Socialism is a system in which the means of production (power) is wielded by the people (the voters in a democracy).


No. There are two types of "systems".

The first to arrive was capitalisim. It's willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality.

It will aways have its charlatans, those who actually don't deliver on the deal or misrepresent it.

But thats human nature, not a failing in the system.

The second system to arrive was the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems.
It also has its charlatans.

The difference ? Violence.

Willing buyer - willing seller, fair price is the only system that requires no violence.

[Street Gerbil]

surely the depth of answer that would satisfy B couldn't be accomplished given 'one short phrase that a school kid could understand'?
I am asking for a simple answer, not an incorrect one. To give a motorbike analogy again, the answer provided is "A motorcycle is a neon-green vehicle", rather than "a 2-wheeled motor vehicle that sometimes is painted neon-green".

[imdying]

I am asking for a simple answer, not an incorrect one. To give a motorbike analogy again, the answer provided is "A motorcycle is a neon-green vehicle", rather than "a 2-wheeled motor vehicle that sometimes is painted neon-green".Ok, so what's the correct answer to that question? :confused:

[Usarka]

I am asking for a simple answer, not an incorrect one. To give a motorbike analogy again, the answer provided is "A motorcycle is a neon-green vehicle", rather than "a 2-wheeled motor vehicle that sometimes is painted neon-green".

i shouldnt have inhaled.....:eek5:

[Robert Taylor]

Socialism ''thrives'' when the same people perpetuating it also create state dependency. ''Working for families'' is a great example, overtax them in the first place and then use an army of paid state beneficiaries to give some of it back. Perverse, and deliberately done to engender fear that such subsidy will be lost if you dont vote for the morons running this country.
I giggled a little when I heard about Tau Henares tiff with Mallard and Ill takes sides on that. And, Ill happily put up the first $100 for an opposition MP to sink to Mallards level by punching Cullens lights out, thereby wiping the self satisfied grin off that cocky little badger

[Street Gerbil]

Ok, so what's the correct answer to that question? :confused:

Do you really expect me to give an answer such as "Professor Snape dies on page 658", or "the murderer of Sir Henry Baskerville is Jack Stapleton"? That would be *SO* unsportsmanlike. But I promise, you will know the correct answer in the end.

[imdying]

Do you really expect me to give an answer such as "Professor Snape dies on page 658", or "the murderer of Sir Henry Baskerville is Jack Stapleton"? That would be *SO* unsportsmanlike. But I promise, you will know the correct answer in the end.How do I know his answer is wrong if I haven't got yours to compare it to?

[Robert Taylor]

ahh, there ya go with the usual propaganda and ill informed ignorance again.

that's ok though, the smaller the mind of the poster, the less ignorant bullshit i feel the need to refute

Finn, dont forget that HIS way is the only way and that if you express a viewpoint sympathetic to filthy capitalism and liberal thinking you will incur a long verbal diatribe of left wing propaganda. It wont be too long before unreformable right thinking people like you and I will be ordered by the State to attend political re-education classes.

I rather think this has become a contest of who shouts loudest and longest. To that end there is a clear winner.

[Street Gerbil]

How do I know his answer is wrong if I haven't got yours to compare it to?

You don't, for the time being. But I promise you will. I truly wish to give 3i a fighting chance to give the correct answer.

[imdying]

I guess that would be fair :yes:

[steveb64]

Finn, dont forget that HIS way is the only way and that if you express a viewpoint sympathetic to filthy capitalism and liberal thinking you will incur a long verbal diatribe of left wing propaganda. It wont be too long before unreformable right thinking people like you and I will be ordered by the State to attend political re-education classes.

I rather think this has become a contest of who shouts loudest and longest. To that end there is a clear winner.

Oh, I dunno - I thought he was being quite reasonable - compared to a thread (flame war?) I've been having with some American religious zealots over in a US M/C site... I did look at some of the earlier pages, and was REAL tempted to leap in here - did visit... :msn-wink: - but the Yanks had worn me down enough I couldn't be buggered... :buggerd::beer::doobey: Play nice guys... :niceone:

[Winston001]

Doesn't it puzzle you III that socialist thinking has been vibrantly alive since the French revolution yet no country in the world has ever successfully embraced it?

[slowpoke]

No. There are two types of "systems".

The first to arrive was capitalisim. It's willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality.

It will aways have its charlatans, those who actually don't deliver on the deal or misrepresent it.

But thats human nature, not a failing in the system.

The second system to arrive was the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems.
It also has its charlatans.

The difference ? Violence.

Willing buyer - willing seller, fair price is the only system that requires no violence.

Hmmm, I don't necessarily agree with either of your "system" descritions.

"willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality." How do things like monopoly's fit into this equation? Big supermarket chains dominate and exterminate smaller competition and eventually the "willing buyer" is left no option but to pay extortionate prices for goods that the supermarkets have purchsed for a pittance 'cos the growers/manufacturers have no-one else to sell too.
Or resource companies who actively destabalise the countries they are raping so they can insert/buy a sympathetic puppet government....
Or globalised companies who demand cheap power, low taxation, high emissions allowance for their factories or they'll take them somewhere else.....
Or drug companies holding people to ransom for horrendously overpriced medication that is produced for next to nothing. Whole African country's are decimated by disease yet still drug companies put shareholder value above millions of human lives.
I could go on and on.......


"...the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems."

This description could equally apply to any capitalist country, the United States for example. The US Army didn't choose to get involved in Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Honduras, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, they got involved as directed by their capitalist government. As leader of the most capitalist country on earth, George Dubya also happens to have the most powerful Armed Forces on Earth so the power argument has nothing to do with capitalism, communism or any other _ism. As for the communism equals violence argument how do you equate the idea of a commune with that? Picture a commune and violence is the last thing that springs to mind.

Economic violence is still violence and kills just as surely, although in a far more insidious manner.

[98tls]

As for the communism equals violence argument how do you equate the idea of a commune with that? Picture a commune and violence is the last thing that springs to mind. 15 millon Russians may well debate that...........if they could.

[slowpoke]

15 millon Russians may well debate that...........if they could.

Yup, there have been some gross abuses of both systems over the years. I'm not necessarily espousing either system, but it would be interesting to take both systems down to a smaller unit that we could get our heads around, pure examples of each without any of the beauracracy and power games.

How's about comparing a company of 100 people to a commune of 100 people? Both would have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

The company would have a triangular hierarchy with wealth concentrated at the top. Hopefully wealth would filter down with the potential for everyone to benefit from good performance however we know this usually doesn't happen, witness executive salary increases vs employee wage increases in recent years. Company policy, direction and decision making is fast and unequivocal with management having 100% control.

The commune would have a much flatter structure with equal rights for all. There is not always a direct reward for effort for every member who excels or drags the chain, however rewards coming from production would be distributed equally across the members. Commune direction, policies and decision making would be more cumbersome with no single member having ultimate control but the members would have more "buy in" as they are able to exert their own influence.

Ultimately it's like comparing apples and oranges. Who can say what is better...and who set's the comparison criteria?

Maybe it comes down to whether you see yourself as a leader or a follower. There's nothing wrong with either, after all you shouldn't judge someone by what they do just how they do it. If you see yourself as a leader then you'll probably sway towards capitalism and the riches that you hope will flow your way. As a follower you probably favour a more unified team effort approach.

[idleidolidyll]

No. There are two types of "systems".

The first to arrive was capitalisim. It's willing buyer, willing seller, negotiated price, product, and quality.

that's commerce not capitalism; both systems use it.


It will aways have its charlatans, those who actually don't deliver on the deal or misrepresent it.

But thats human nature, not a failing in the system.

The second system to arrive was the control economy. This is a system where those with power (an army or police force) are in control. Feudalisim, communisim and socialisim are examples of these systems.
It also has its charlatans.

that's authoritarianism not socialism and i have identified many times that authoritarianism is the most dangerous ideology.

The difference ? Violence.

Willing buyer - willing seller, fair price is the only system that requires no violence.

Wrong. That's NOT the definition of capitalism OR socialism; that's just the propaganda.

BOTH systems use an exchange model and the core difference is who controls the exchange or wields the power in the system.

and again we see the problem with the whole debate: the very definitions of the subjects being discussed are distorted by propaganda before ideas are exchanged.

once more from the dictionary:

The New Zealand Oxford Paperback Dictionary ISBN 0 19 5584104:

Capitalism: An economic system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

Capitalist: 1. n One who has much capital invested; derog; a rich person.
2. a person who favours capitalism

Socialism: n A political and economic theory advocating that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production, transport, property etc.

there is no specific extra definition for the word socialist.

These are NOT my personal definitions. These are exactly the definitions from the source quoted.

So, what are the implications. The main idea of course is about power and control. It's well understood that people with power become addicted to power and usually use that power for their own good first.
In capitalism, power is to be wielded by a small clique of the elite; the wealthy. We are expected to believe that this small interest group will 'do the right thing' and will act ethically and honourably. However, centuries of examples show that when a small group is given power they almost inevitably manipulate that power for their own ends regardless of the consequences for the rest of their countrymen/women.
In contrast, socialism recognises the potential and reality of abuse by elite minorities and seeks to place power in the hands of the people themselves in order to mitigate abuse. This is usually through democracy or collective organisations.

Both systems have evolved of course and although their base ideals remain the same, the way they go about the business of control is quite different.
It is a LIE to say that socialism is abusive and capitalism is not. In fact it is authoriarianism that is abusive and when EITHER system becomes corrupted by it, abuse is likely.

However, when authoritarianism is introduced into capitalism, it remains capitalism. When authoritarianism is introduced into socialism, it becomes ex socialism because power is taken away from the people and abused by the minority.

The lie that socialism is abusive and capitalism is not is easily exposed merely by pointing out the model of the USA where today a dictator in all but name wields his power to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people for commercial gain. That same nation has always been more than happy to destroy democracy as in Chile when they helped Pinochet oust the democratically elected Allende. Pinochet went on to run one of the worlds most abusive regimes. The example can be seen again and again from Saudi Arabia to Cambodia.

So to sum up: I'm not interested in your OPINION of what socialism and capitalism are, I'm interested in reality. Opinions are far too distorted by propaganda and spin.

[idleidolidyll]

15 millon Russians may well debate that...........if they could.

that's because russia's communism was hijacked by authoritarianism: the greatest danger by far

once it was hijacked, it was no longer communism because power was wielded by a dictator and not by the people

the same has happened in the USA today but when capitalism is hijacked by authoritarianism, it's core definition is not destroyed. Ultimate power is placed in the hands of a rich elite.

[idleidolidyll]

That's a failing answer. I am sorry, pal, but you really have to do better than that. Of course, mind you, I studied the definitions of both from a very partisan source, the textbook called "Introduction to Marxism-Leninism for 5th grade" published by the Ministry of Education of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but I truly hope that for you it qualifies as an unbiased material. So again, layman's terms. One phrase for each, explaining the meaning of "socialism" and "communism". Remember, I ask you for a very simple explanation, geared towards schoolkids. Please, give it your best shot.

THe USSR was corrupted by authoriatrianism and as such it could not be defined as actually socialist. It was a dictatorship and the definition from that abusive dictatorship is merely propaganda. That you rely on propaganda rather than text book definitions or truly authoritative sources like Marx or Adam Smith speaks volumes.

Hitler SAID his party was socialist but in reality it was a dictatorship and worked specifically on behalf of corporations and the catholic church who sanctioned much of their abuse.
However, socialism is NOT what abusers SAY it is. It is a system in which power is placed in the hands of the people NOT a small elite.

If I was to tell you I was the King of the World would you believe me? NO? Then why do you believe fascist dictators who are famous for their use and abuse of propaganda to control the people?

[idleidolidyll]

Finn, dont forget that HIS way is the only way and that if you express a viewpoint sympathetic to filthy capitalism and liberal thinking you will incur a long verbal diatribe of left wing propaganda. It wont be too long before unreformable right thinking people like you and I will be ordered by the State to attend political re-education classes.

I rather think this has become a contest of who shouts loudest and longest. To that end there is a clear winner.

I'm just a counterpoint to the racist bigotted bullshit I saw here from the 'right' when I first arrived.

shooting the messenger is silly

[slowpoke]

Aaaaaaah, things make a bit more sense now. I've been trying to figure out why it all gets fucked up and the "authoritarianism" explains things very nicely. Well said.

[Robert Taylor]

I'm just a counterpoint to the racist bigotted bullshit I saw here from the 'right' when I first arrived.

shooting the messenger is silly

And loudly so! We will have to agree to disagree and I rather think that three labels you have used in your first sentence are applicable to your view of the world.

Im off to the Northern Hemisphere for 2 weeks so you wont have to ''suffer'' my view of the world. Its been entertaining!

[Grahameeboy]

So in brief it seems to me that some here wake up, think deeply about Capitilism and Socialism, have a debate etc, go to work and work for a Capitalist, go home, whilst eating, read and debating some more.

No wonder you guys worry about lack of freedom.

[idleidolidyll]

Aaaaaaah, things make a bit more sense now. I've been trying to figure out why it all gets fucked up and the "authoritarianism" explains things very nicely. Well said.

slowpoke: I posted this website a while ago. http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
Rather than relying on the one dimensional left/right line that divides but does not explain much at all. It categorises political parties and people all over the world using an extra index for the degree of authoritarianism from anarchist to fascist.
I challenged those here to take the test online and post their results but only a couple were brave enough to do so.
I've found in the past that many people are so battered by propaganda that they don't understand what the core definitions actually are. This site also has overlays for the positions of political parties and politicians across the globe and after taking the test, you can see where you would fit in the various political philosophies.
Due to propaganda, many people actually vote against the philosophies they should be supporting.

Again and for the record, here's my result from the website test:
Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-7.88&soc=-5.95

[idleidolidyll]

So in brief it seems to me that some here wake up, think deeply about Capitilism and Socialism, have a debate etc, go to work and work for a Capitalist, go home, whilst eating, read and debating some more.

No wonder you guys worry about lack of freedom.

no graemeboy, that's exactly what i mean about propaganda.

a business owner or manager is not necessarily capitalist just because they own or run a business. I too have been an employer and a business owner and I am definitely not a capitalist

it's about your belief in who should make the rules and control the lives of the citizens.

in effect, democracy is a socialist idea and not one that capitalists like at all.

[idleidolidyll]

The NZ Political Compass based on the policies and statements of politicians in the 2005 elections:

As you can see, despite the propaganda, Labour is NOT a left wing party. It's the closest thing to centrist that we have. National however is very right wing and quite fascist too.

No wonder I vote for neither of them. To see who I support, look at my index in comparison.

The New Zealand Party Political Compass™

<center> http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/nz2005.gif</center>
Here are the Yank politicians in 2004:


<center> http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/USelection2004.gif



Here's the POME's in 2006:


<center>http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enParties.gif


and here's Austruckinfalia:


<center>http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/aus2007.png</center>

</center>
</center>

[idleidolidyll]

And loudly so! We will have to agree to disagree and I rather think that three labels you have used in your first sentence are applicable to your view of the world.

Im off to the Northern Hemisphere for 2 weeks so you wont have to ''suffer'' my view of the world. Its been entertaining!

yes, it has been quite entertaining and i'm still on to buy the first beer.

have a great trip

[Grahameeboy]

no graemeboy, that's exactly what i mean about propaganda.

a business owner or manager is not necessarily capitalist just because they own or run a business. I too have been an employer and a business owner and I am definitely not a capitalist

it's about your belief in who should make the rules and control the lives of the citizens.

in effect, democracy is a socialist idea and not one that capitalists like at all.

Dude, it's your choice, however you take life too seriously.

You show a definition of Capitalist and then say that this is not necessarily the case?:confused:

We have the ability to control our own lives but think others do.........it's about shuffling the responsibility. When things don't go our way we blame someone else.

I have my faith and yes you can attack me for it, call be delusionable etc, however, I have freedom and don't consider that my life is controlled by Capitalists etc

Life is short and debates are long.

We do have freedom, we just don't realise it sometimes.

[Grahameeboy]

yes, it has been quite entertaining and i'm still on to buy the first beer.

have a great trip

So you believe in Socialism then?

[Joni]

THat test was very interesting Idle.... I fell in the area I though I would... but there were a ew surprises too! :confused:

[idleidolidyll]

Dude, it's your choice, however you take life too seriously.

You show a definition of Capitalist and then say that this is not necessarily the case?:confused:

No, i showed an authoritative definition of capitalism and said that the core definition remains the same even though tactics have changed somewhat.

We have the ability to control our own lives but think others do.........it's about shuffling the responsibility. When things don't go our way we blame someone else.

that's debatable. many say we are a product of our environment and that free will is therefore an illusion.

I have my faith and yes you can attack me for it, call be delusionable etc, however, I have freedom and don't consider that my life is controlled by Capitalists etc

but your life is controlled by your faith and that faith was probably largely an accident of birth. If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia you'd have been Muslim. Free will? I wonder.

Life is short and debates are long.

We do have freedom, we just don't realise it sometimes.

We have freedom as long as we are able to control our own lives. Placing that control in the hands of others (capitalists if you wish) or allowing them to take power removes or reduces our free will considerably.

[idleidolidyll]

THat test was very interesting Idle.... I fell in the area I though I would... but there were a ew surprises too! :confused:

yes it is and even though, like all tests, it's flawed, it at least gives a uniform guide to our actual positions in the political worlds outside of propaganda.

[Joni]

yes it is and even though, like all tests, it's flawed, it at least gives a uniform guide to our actual positions in the political worlds outside of propaganda. Yup... I knew I would fall in the liberal area (so that was a confirmation of what I knew)... but I was closer to the authoritarian than I though I would be (the surpirse)...

[Grahameeboy]

We have freedom as long as we are able to control our own lives. Placing that control in the hands of others (capitalists if you wish) or allowing them to take power removes or reduces our free will considerably.

I became a Christian 2 years ago aged 43 so my choice............aharr......got you there eh:yes:

Well I must be lucky cause I feel that I have freedom and do not place the control in the hands of others. That is the difference.

[slowpoke]

Yup... I knew I would fall in the liberal area (so that was a confirmation of what I knew)... but I was closer to the authoritarian than I though I would be (the surpirse)...

Yup, very very interesting test and well worth the time taken to do it. My results:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15

Come the revolution brothers!

[davereid]

We have freedom as long as we are able to control our own lives. Placing that control in the hands of others (capitalists if you wish) or allowing them to take power removes or reduces our free will considerably.

But thats exactly what socialisim does. It takes by force, like Robin Hood, using the funds extracted at gunpoint to fund it's own agendas and supporters.

If your tax demand had a checklist, and you could choose the services you supported and only had to pay for those you agreed to, tax revenues would plummet.

Socialisim works by spending other peoples money.

[imdying]

We have freedom as long as we are able to control our own lives. Placing that control in the hands of others (capitalists if you wish) or allowing them to take power removes or reduces our free will considerably.But is it all bad? I'm happy to sell 40 hours a week of my life to them for a house and some motorbikes :yes: Would be nice not to have to work, but I don't expect a free ride :no:

[idleidolidyll]

I have my faith and yes you can attack me for it, call be delusionable etc,



Graemeboy;

I might disagree with the existence of a deity and believe that organised religion is abusive and the cause of a great deal of humanity's problems but I don't for a minute deny you the right to practice what you believe in as long as you don't abuse others in doing so.

What REALLY pisses me off though is that the opposite is not quite as true.

I refuse to sing the NZ National Anthem for instance because MY right NOT to believe in a deity is abused and ignored in that to support my country I am expected to beg 'god' for the privelage.

Change the flag? I don't give a damn! Get rid of that divisive bloody national anthem so all of us can feel like New Zealanders? FUCK YES!

[idleidolidyll]

But is it all bad? I'm happy to sell 40 hours a week of my life to them for a house and some motorbikes :yes: Would be nice not to have to work, but I don't expect a free ride :no:

no, i'm not trying to promote a black or white fallacy argument, i understand there are many shades of grey and have said as much on a number of occassions

[idleidolidyll]

But thats exactly what socialisim does. It takes by force, like Robin Hood, using the funds extracted at gunpoint to fund it's own agendas and supporters.

If your tax demand had a checklist, and you could choose the services you supported and only had to pay for those you agreed to, tax revenues would plummet.

Socialisim works by spending other peoples money.

No it doesn't; it gives power to the people collectively and then they as a group decide. In our system that is called democracy.

Capitalism is virtually the opposite and as evidenced by Bush, it certainly takes what it wants by force. One is a system where a minority gets to unilaterally control and the other is a system where people decide or their representatives decide for them.

tax is a necessary evil and serves to counter the fascism of self serving power crazy people by providing services out of the collective pocket that would otherwise be unlikely to be affordable for most.

You say socialism works by spending other peoples money. Maybe so but by far the most abusive system is capitalism which profits by 'spending' peoples lives and freedom.

long live Robin Hood.

letting capitalists serve themselves by getting rich off the blood and misery of mankind is far more vile.

[idleidolidyll]

I became a Christian 2 years ago aged 43 so my choice............aharr......got you there eh:yes:

Not really. In a largely christian based system you had few opportunities to be exposed to the truth about other religions. Your 'choice' was certainly weighted heavily by the circumstances of your birth.

Well I must be lucky cause I feel that I have freedom and do not place the control in the hands of others. That is the difference.

But don't christians place themselves in the hands of a non existant deity whose minions tell them what is right and what's not?

Sounds like a lack of control to me

[idleidolidyll]

Yup... I knew I would fall in the liberal area (so that was a confirmation of what I knew)... but I was closer to the authoritarian than I though I would be (the surpirse)...

haha! having felt your whip when you were moderating, I'm not at all surprised. :hug:

[idleidolidyll]

But thats exactly what socialisim does. It takes by force, like Robin Hood, using the funds extracted at gunpoint to fund it's own agendas and supporters.

I

please, spare the dramatics

it doesn't take tax by gunpoint and the agendas and supporters are the majority not the minority: that's the point

control in the hands of the majority to do their will not control in the hands of the minority to do their will

btw: capitalism as practiced by the USA and Britain has long used military and covert violence to control and manipulate entire economies.