Maybe we should take Eugenics more seriously?

[sasguru]

Come now you pedants, the point of CUK general is to make sport with cretins, not have serious discussions.

[Old Greg]

Come now you pedants, the point of CUK general is to make sport with cretins, not have serious discussions.

We thought we'd lay off you a while before you wet the bed.

[DodgyAgent]

It is a pity you are so ignorant.

I make a good living out of business activities, not capitalist activities. My income is derived from the value of my labour, not from capital such as through the surplus value of people I employ.

Tell me where the hypocrisy is.

So yet again, instead of dealing with the debate re - value for money from public sector services youi have now turned it into a hair splitting argument about the definition of capitalism. In true leftie form you avoid the core argument and try to move somewhere where you can gain points.

[Old Greg]

So yet again, instead of dealing with the debate re - value for money from public sector services youi have now turned it into a hair splitting argument about the definition of capitalism. In true leftie form you avoid the core argument and try to move somewhere where you can gain points.

Shut it. I was answering your ridiculous point about contractors. As always you ignore it and change the argument and accuse me of ignoring a different point.

Your dishonesty is staggering and betrays the weakness of your position.

You like to make out that you care about individual freedom and responsibility whereas that is a fig leaf so that you can blame others for the economic system you and your ilk have created for you own benefit. In truth, as long as you have that you want, everyone else can rot.

When you learn to make an honest argument I will engage with you further.

[DodgyAgent]

Shut it. I was answering your ridiculous point about contractors. As always you ignore it and change the argument and accuse me of ignoring a different point.

Your dishonesty is staggering and betrays the weakness of your position.

You like to make out that you care about individual freedom and responsibility whereas that is a fig leaf so that you can blame others for the economic system you and your ilk have created for you own benefit. In truth, as long as you have that you want, everyone else can rot.

When you learn to make an honest argument I will engage with you further.

You are every bit a greedy self interested capitalist as I am. The demise of the economic system is (again) thanks to the self serving and incompetent bunch of socialists who have been running the country since the last Tory government.

[ZARDOZ]

You are every bit a greedy self interested capitalist as I am. The demise of the economic system is (again) thanks to the self serving and incompetent bunch of socialists who have been running the country since the last Tory government.

No it isn't. It was the derregualtion of the lending markets in the US and later mainland Europe and the UK in order to please the lobyists from the various Banks and Hedge funds etc many of which have been bailed out by the tax payer/have gone bust/ the CEOs have been disgraced/imprisoned.
That's an historical matter of fact, it's not an opinion.

It used to be reasonable straightforward to keep constraint on the money supply before that. Blame unfettered liberalisation of the markets not socialism. I'm sure if New labour hadn't courted the city you would have been complaining (at the time) that they were restricting the market and making us uncompetitive.

One thing for sure, it's certain that markets cannot operate indefinately without some sort of external control. I'm sure you will now take this as a defense of Socialism.

[Robinho]

So what you are really saying is that I live in a capitalist society.

I can see what you are trying to say. That you don't purely gain your wealth through things that you own. But you are still voluntarily selling your services for financial gain and that is capitalist. You are wrong that Fascism is the ultimate form of Capitalism. The ultimate form of capitalism would occur under an Anarchic or Libertarian society where only property rights were upheld. Fascism involves a lot of state control and large corporations. Trade unions are also capitalistic, what is not capitalistic is giving them special rights for example, a right to strike, that does not mean strikes and collective bargaining cannot occur though.

[Robinho]

No it isn't. It was the derregualtion of the lending markets in the US and later mainland Europe and the UK in order to please the lobyists from the various Banks and Hedge funds etc many of which have been bailed out by the tax payer/have gone bust/ the CEOs have been disgraced/imprisoned.
That's an historical matter of fact, it's not an opinion.

It used to be reasonable straightforward to keep constraint on the money supply before that. Blame unfettered liberalisation of the markets not socialism. I'm sure if New labour hadn't courted the city you would have been complaining (at the time) that they were restricting the market and making us uncompetitive.

One thing for sure, it's certain that markets cannot operate indefinately without some sort of external control. I'm sure you will now take this as a defense of Socialism.

The mess is because people bought mortgages they couldn't afford. Don't blame liberalisation. Blame human greed.

There is nothing liberal about bailing out banks, high inflation rates, printing money, fiat currencies, tax and spend either.

[DodgyAgent]

No it isn't. It was the derregualtion of the lending markets in the US and later mainland Europe and the UK in order to please the lobyists from the various Banks and Hedge funds etc many of which have been bailed out by the tax payer/have gone bust/ the CEOs have been disgraced/imprisoned.
That's an historical matter of fact, it's not an opinion.

It used to be reasonable straightforward to keep constraint on the money supply before that. Blame unfettered liberalisation of the markets not socialism. I'm sure if New labour hadn't courted the city you would have been complaining (at the time) that they were restricting the market and making us uncompetitive.

One thing for sure, it's certain that markets cannot operate indefinately without some sort of external control. I'm sure you will now take this as a defense of Socialism.

I agree with your facts but I will argue (Tory or Labour) that it is up to the government to control what happens in the economy otherwise what is the point of a government? One problem with unfettered liberalisation of markets is that they become monopolies (banks) , National Grid/Utility companies. This situation is often helped by governments who surrender to lobbyists by creating rules and regulations that prevent new entrants to markets.

If socialism is to be effective it should be efficiently controlling markets and keeping them competitive whilst at the same time providing public services that gives everyone access to free market capitalism and not just posh public schoolboys.

Unfortunately those in control of the socialist run institutions have very different agendas which are more about looking after themselves than redistributing wealth(effectively) or enhancing social mobility. Unfortunately this state of affairs is encouraged by middle class left wing liberals who patronisingly refuse to acknowledge that reform of the public sector is needed. The Tories too should be doing the same and indeed they are trying but it is very hard for them to reform institutions hell bent on preserving themselves.

[sasguru]

. The demise of the economic system is (again) thanks to the self serving and incompetent bunch of socialists who have been running the country since the last Tory government.

Incorrect.
The demise of the economic system can be traced back to the liberalisation of the City and Wall St. in 1986.
The "socialists" left the existing financial system well alone*, although they tried to re-distribute the proceeds to their voting bloc.

*apart from Clinton who encouraged mortgage lending to the poor