Billy Bragg

[Mich the Tester]

So you can't be wealthy and also believe in the intervention of the state to ensure support for those unable to support themselves to a minimum level as defined by the majority of the electorate??

Strange notion....

Different matter. ‘Intervention of the state to ensure support for those unable to support themselves to a minimum level as defined by the majority of the electorate’ is not in itself socialism, and even predates socialism. You don’t have to be a socialist to believe that people can’t help themselves should be helped by the state.

[DodgyAgent]

The issue is the central banks have caused the banks to perform well over the last year, not the talent of the investment bankers. That was the point of QE and almost 0% interest rates on bank lending from state exchequers around the world.

They have literally had to sit in their offices and do nothing for the past year and the figures are brilliant.

Now they are trying to suggest that they use tax payers money to pay bank bonuses when they are massively in hock to the state.

That would seem somewhat unfair, wouldn't you say.

How is that for logical DA? Maybe you should be less dogmatic about your position and consider every situation on it's merits. This is not an issue of social persuasion it is an issue of fairness, I would suggest.

Some logic at last! Fairness should not have any bearing on this whatsoever. As you say every situation on its merits. If companies want to pay bankers for doing nothing then there is a reason why. If bonuses are withdrawn and the bankers still remain then it is not unreasonable to withold the bonuses. If tax payers money is creating complacency and banks are using money to pay unnecessary wages then put a stop to it.

If the bankers are needed in order that banks-nationalised or not- are profitable then sod Billy Bragg and pay the wages.

[minestrone]

I am going to refuse to pay my taxes as well, sick off it being spent on hairy lesbian billy brag listening social workers taking chavy criminals off on safari so they can find their inner self.

[BlackenedBiker]

Different matter. ‘Intervention of the state to ensure support for those unable to support themselves to a minimum level as defined by the majority of the electorate’ is not in itself socialism, and even predates socialism. You don’t have to be a socialist to believe that people can’t help themselves should be helped by the state.

I think you will find that it is a fairly major plank of the socialist agenda. Where as IMO Capatalism expounds that one should look at for oneself and a consequence of generating wealth for oneself is that you will generate wealth for others in society.....

[BlackenedBiker]

I am going to refuse to pay my taxes as well, sick off it being spent on hairy lesbian billy brag listening social workers taking chavy criminals off on safari so they can find their inner self.

I found by inner self once, or was it twice...

[Mich the Tester]

I think you will find that it is a fairly major plank of the socialist agenda. Where as IMO Capatalism expounds that one should look at for oneself and a consequence of generating wealth for oneself is that you will generate wealth for others in society.....

It is supposedly a major plank of socialism, although I’m interested to see how much tax money is spent on helping poor people in relation to how much is spent administering that help, but I object to the idea that state assistance for the poor is a socialist construct. It isn’t. It’s an ancient construct which pre-dates socialism by more than 2000 years and in fact pre-dates the nation state as we know it, but seems to have been claimed by socialists as their great innovation. I think you’ll find that most ‘capitalists’, when pushed, will actually concede that the state, or some other level of government like the council needs to help those who can’t help themselves, if only for the sake of preventing Brazilian style barrios from rising up around the place.

[BlackenedBiker]

It is supposedly a major plank of socialism, although I’m interested to see how much tax money is spent on helping poor people in relation to how much is spent administering that help, but I object to the idea that state assistance for the poor is a socialist construct. It isn’t. It’s an ancient construct which pre-dates socialism by more than 2000 years and in fact pre-dates the nation state as we know it, but seems to have been claimed by socialists as their great innovation. I think you’ll find that most ‘capitalists’, when pushed, will actually concede that the state, or some other level of government like the council needs to help those who can’t help themselves, if only for the sake of preventing Brazilian style barrios from rising up around the place.

If ancients called an elephant a dave, it would still be what we know as an elephant today.

Ancient cultures, pre-history were an interesting blend of altruism (essence of socialism) and bashing beta-males heads in with a club (embryonic capatalism) and alpha-males taking any female they wanted (that actually was Eternal Optimist in his early days)

[Mich the Tester]

If ancients called an elephant a dave, it would still be what we know as an elephant today.

Ancient cultures, pre-history were an interesting blend of altruism (essence of socialism) and bashing beta-males heads in with a club (embryonic capatalism) and alpha-males taking any female they wanted (that actually was Eternal Optimist in his early days)

What is so altruistic about voting for everybody, including others, to pay more tax, or indeed ‘taking the means of production by force’? There’s nothing altruistic about forcing solidarity upon others. Altruism is by definition voluntary and cannot involve the use of force to coerce others into replicating one’s actions.

[RichardCranium]

I agree that nurses could be better paid than they are now

I don't. Now nurses can be on £36k with 2 years experience, it's about time people stopped banging that drum.

[BlackenedBiker]

What is so altruistic about voting for everybody, including others, to pay more tax, or indeed ‘taking the means of production by force’? There’s nothing altruistic about forcing solidarity upon others. Altruism is by definition voluntary and cannot involve the use of force to coerce others into replicating one’s actions.

Not talking of communism/marxism old boy, we would as an electorate be entitled to vote on the issue. I am waving the flag for reformation not revolution my friend.

I agree that most people (not SG or DimPrawn) are to a greater/lesser extent socialist in their tendancies. This, I believe, is due to Homo Sapiens being a social species.

Socialism isn't hard and fast it is a continuum. I just like the idea of looking after my fellow man. And hey friend if I can help one of my brothers in this life I will be happy to have lived it.