Election predictions

Clinton

9 (69.2%)

Trump

4 (30.8%)

Hung college

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[scyth]

Reread the paragraph; degree courses are included. You could get Ordinary National Certificates and on upwards through all sorts of degrees according to your ability, desires and patience. You are your limits.
 
Rob

sure, that does not turn you into an engineer if you work as a technician ... and vice versa ... and in any case both will benefits one from the shop floor experience and one from a degree - but that does not change the nature of who they are

[scyth]

Right. The kind of "cooperative" you're talking about is called a city.

not exactly, the "city" is already morphed into "gov't" because it claims (based on the state laws for example) the authority over territory that it does not own...

[scyth]

Protecting McD's employee livelihood? Maybe you're not a careful reader. At the moment the local McDs are closed for renovation -- except for the drive-throughs. When they open again they'll have automated ordering devices. Former order-takers are out on their posteriors because of min wage enforcement. Doesn't sound as if min wages protected employee livelihoods does it?

just like a gallery can kick you out - you go and sell your copyrighted work elsewhere ... but you retain your protections that I can't steal it from you... so McD employee can go and find another job, but gov't shall protect his min wage (which is not tied to McD, btw)

[Tony Jay]

just like a gallery can kick you out - you go and sell your copyrighted work elsewhere ... but you retain your protections that I can't steal it from you... so McD employee can go and find another job, but gov't shall protect his min wage (which is not tied to McD, btw)

Purely theoretical...

Come on, be practical, this only works if, and only if, there is another job available to go to.
Minimum wage is meaningless to the unemployed.

Tony Jay

[mecrox]

Hi Mecrox, (have you an actual name?) Yes, Ayn Rand was a bit over the top. Government has many legitimate functions: providing clean water (which government failed utterly to do for Flint, Michigan), sewage disposal, etc. And as you point out, legitimate government functions include protecting individuals from the depredations of other individuals. That would include protections against robbery, slavery, pollution that harms others, etc. But it emphatically doesn't include such things as providing health care or establishing wage levels.

Until the 1930's the U.S. pretty much had free markets, though there were exceptions. There always are exceptions. FDR's government experiments with socialism managed to keep the Great Depression (caused by government interference with free trade) going until WW II broke out, but our residual strength, the remnants of what we'd built with free markets, allowed us to go to the rescue of the Western world. Without that rescue your "three thousand or so years of shared history and culture, and freedoms and values hard fought for" would have gone down the same drain the Romans went down. Heaven help us if we come face to face with a similar threat today.

If you see all that as "piffle" or "not worthy of the West," I'd suggest you explain what you mean.

Mecrox is made up of my first name which is Mark, my second name and my hometown with is Oxford.

My point is simple. Saying that whatever ails one is down to an overbearing government impeding a free market is really another form of bliblical prophecy: if only the people followed the path of righteousness rather than weakly allowed themselves to be led astray by the wiles of politicians then the promised land would arrive and all human ills would vanish. In practice, governments will always regulate because it is part of their job and a truly free market will never materialise because such a thing does not in fact exist, legally at least.

All that has been set up is an endless cycle of blame which neatly permits fans of the prophecy to evade responsibility for tackling the actual problems of the moment. Instead, they can avoid sullying themselves with the mess and compromises of the world and intone that it's all the fault of government and of a weak and ungodly people who want their government to do more than it should, apparently. It is one long If Only. Health care? The people are weak. Education? Ungodly. Housing or perhaps employment rights? Blasphemy. If only the people were not so weak and saw the path of righteousness.

Trouble is, recent history shows that once you start down the road of stripping out the shared values, laws and culture which make up a nation in the name of a greater good of some kind, including economic doctrines based on an arbitrary definition of what government is, then pretty soon maniacal dictators are turning up and running the show. Pragmatic government usually works tolerably well but ideology tends to be lethal. The extent to which humans are prepared to inflict suffering on others in the name of an idea, always a mad idea, is one of the more depressing realizations as one grows older. The Alt Right and, in the UK, the more inflexible end of the "Brexit" movement are just the latest incarnations of something with a long and very disreputable history.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

There is a new statue on the streets of Chicago: Lincoln pointing a young man in the right direction

[Manoli]

Minimum wage is meaningless to the unemployed.

Meaningless  or worthless ?
As are zero- hour work contracts ..

[tom b]

"That would include protections against robbery, slavery, pollution that harms others, etc. But it emphatically doesn't include such things as providing health care or establishing wage levels."

"Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

"if it aint broke don't fix it." If anything needs fixing, this surely does.

The GFC was caused by unregulated companies "gone wild", luckily we had a mining boom in Australia and financial regulations in place.

God help us from Trump the four times bankrupt (or is that six times). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.2c0b580384c9

Cheers,

[Tony Jay]

Meaningless  or worthless ?

I would say both.
No job - it doesn't matter if the minimum wage is $1 000 000.00 per month!

[Rob C]

I watched - and listened - to the John Kerry speech yesterday, and for the first time I saw a guy telling it like it is regarding the Is/Pal dispute, and then today the Netanyahu response. It's was if Netanyahu had been replying to another speech made on Mars by Darth V. himself. The red herrings Netanyahu raised were incredble, yet some will swallow it all, hook, line and sinker.

And then the spectacle of Trump wading in with his 'just wait until Daddy comes home in a few days, I'll fix it!' which, the more I hear him say, makes that eventuality ever more horrific. I am convinced he must have many erstwhile voters regretting their moment of ballot-box euphoria. His friend Lafarge inspires similar emotions. Somehow, I think both will quickly find their tunes changed for them by reality. Then watch the mood of their country change as disappointment creeps in as the big lie is finally and universally understood for what it is. Yes, it is going to get a helluva lot worse without any guarantee it will then get better. When you get a country that realises that it has nobody left in whom it can believe, there is an ending of communal hope.

Pity Kerry didn't run instead of that self-consumed, pointing at everyone yet at no-one, Mrs C. We might actually have had a chance of ending at least some of the horror of the Middle East. In an era when there is chaos pretty much everywhere, the last thing the world needs is yet another gigantic loose cannon, especially one without any apparent safety-catch.

Rob C

[RSL]

I'd rather not lose any of my friends on LuLa, so this will be my final post in this thread.

For schoolkids and those who know little about history, the socialist slogan has great appeal: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Nowadays, of course, we'd have to substitute "their" for "his" in order to be politically correct even though grammatically incorrect. But if you know anything about history you know that socialism NEVER has succeeded anywhere it's been tried. Under socialism people quickly lose their ability and even more quickly embrace their need.

One of the simplest, easiest to understand examples is the history of the Plymouth Colony on the North American continent, established by Pilgrims in about 1620. In summary, it was a socialist group that nearly was wiped out by starvation under socialism. Finally William Bradford, the governor of the colony told the survivors that in order to eat they'd have to work. Suddenly ability was on the rise and need began to decline. In the end, under private enterprise, the colony thrived. If you look up this history you'll find that local natives were involved in the colony's survival. Sometimes that's overplayed. Sometimes not. But, bottom line, it was the switch from socialism to capitalism that saved the colony from extinction.

But you don't have to know about the Plymouth Colony to see what socialism has "accomplished." You can look at the Soviet Union as an historical example, or you can look at Venezuela as a current example. There are many others, including that paragon of socialist delight, Cuba. You could look at the history of China. Under Mao's brand of socialism China constantly was on the brink of economic disaster. A gradual conversion to a more-or-less capitalist economy has brought the Chinese to a position of international strength. Somebody's going to tell me that that was communism, not socialism, and I'll ask that person to explain the difference. (There isn't any.)

Now somebody surely is going to tell me about the huge success of socialism in Scandinavia. If you really believe that you haven't actually checked it out. Sweden is the classic example of what's happened in Scandinavia. Its economy was faltering and there's been a move toward more and more capitalism that's gradually brought the economy back. Unemployment is falling and the budget is heading toward a surplus. I suspect it'll be at least a generation before the uneducated schoolkids take over again and bring back socialism.

One reason Brexit succeeded and Trump was elected is that people all over the world are becoming fed up with socialism. Brexit and Trump are just the tip of the iceberg. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the EU's days are numbered. And socialism as a guiding force in the US is about to go under for a couple generations. Its number is up. Oh, it'll take time. Probably a generation. And it won't be complete. There'll always be the schoolkids attracted by the socialist slogan, and eventually they'll take over again and run the Western world's economy into the ground. But at least I won't have to be here on the downslope.

There'll always be socialism and there'll always be capitalism. We almost always see a mix of the two, but it's very clear that where capitalism is the larger part of that mix economies thrive, or at least survive. The opposite is true with the mix moves the other way.

[jeremyrh]

But if you know anything about history you know that socialism NEVER has succeeded anywhere it's been tried. Under socialism people quickly lose their ability and even more quickly embrace their need.

That's odd - the most socialist countries are those in Scandinavia, and they seem to be managing to muddle through. Rather better on every metric than the USA in fact. Still, best not let the facts get in the way of your rant, eh?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's odd - the most socialist countries are those in Scandinavia...

All those are free-market, capitalist countries. The only thing that makes them "socialist" are generous safety nets, but socialist they ain't.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

All those are free-market, capitalist countries. The only thing that makes them "socialist" are generous safety nets, but socialist they ain't.

And that's the problem with Russ' opinion. There is no simple Socialist versus Capitalist choice, there are numerous mixed forms of government possible, and they are actually successful and in place (with different coalitions) for a long time already. Countries with a (mainly) 2-faction type of government are heading for difficult times.

Cheers,
Bart

[jeremyrh]

All those are free-market, capitalist countries. The only thing that makes them "socialist" are generous safety nets, but socialist they ain't.

Mmm - not really. But I'm aware that your mind is as made up as Russ's on the subject.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And that's the problem with Russ' opinion. There is no simple Socialist versus Capitalist choice, there are numerous mixed forms of government possible...

This is also Russ' opinion:

There'll always be socialism and there'll always be capitalism. We almost always see a mix of the two...

How different is it then from what you are saying?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Mmm - not really. But I'm aware that your mind is as made up...

I am open to suggestions.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This is also Russ' opinion:

He is mostly stressing the differences as alternatives and mixes Socialism with Communism. Just look at his earlier statements.

How different is it then from what you are saying?

I'm pointing out a middle ground, and suggest to use the best of both systems,  without getting gridlocked by an opposition that either blocks any movement forward (i.e. the John Boehner tactics to make Obama fail), or even reverses the things done by previous governments when a new government gains a small majority (Trump's promises).

Cheers,
Bart

[Rob C]

No, Russ is right: there is no substantive difference between socialism and communism; it's only a matter of degree, with socialism doing a slightly better PR job than does communism.

You only have to look at the fringes of 'socialism' to see the hordes of banner wavers, the people who turn up at every possible demonstration and hold Daily Worker etc, placards. Socialism, sometimes, but not always, tries to distance itself from those groups, but doesn't really try too hard; how can it - it's family.

Good grief, just look at the number of current and past Brit high-ranking Members of Parliament who openly espoused communism in their early, less PR-savvy lives; it would make you weep at the gullibility of those who vote for them. We have had such people trying to make the UK defenceless by removing its ultimate sanction weapons since we had such weaponry. I can't remember any of the marchers or military camp squatters ever bearing banners condemning the old USSR's weaponry... are you kiddin? That's the ultimate objective: our defeat!

Then, there would be even more flags flying everywhere than in the USA! A veritable sea of poppies, sans a touch of blue or white. If there's a sad bit, it's that many who sincerely believe in the socialist ethic are not aware of what it hides and what drives its head honchos.

Thing is, and where I suggest Russ may be a bit mistaken, is in the hope that history will continue 'safely' to be a series of left/right alternatives, for once the extreme left gets control, in enough powerful countries, that's it; curtains. Those totalitarian countries that are changing slightly are only doing so beause of the existence, at the moment, of very visible alternatives via the Internet etc. Remove that, and where no alternatives are seen, change will cease to be possible. Think of what's going down in Turkey right now, with thousands newly under arrest on political charges; think of how IS can wash minds and recruit so easily and you'll find it hard to believe that any genuine freedom should be taken as a given, anywhere. Momentum...

Rob C

[Rob C]

Perhaps one could conclude like this:

Fascism: you have two cows and the state takes both and sells you some milk.

Communism: you have two cows; the state takes both and gives you some milk.

Sociaism: you have two cows and are supposed to give one to your neighbour who has none.

Traditional Capitalism: you have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell up amd retire on the income.

Venture Capitalism: you have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

Bureaucratism: you have two cows. The state takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.

An Italian Corporation: you have two cows, but you do not know where they are. You decide to have lunch.

A Fench Corporation: you have two cows. You go on strike, organize a riot and block the roads because you want three cows.

A Swiss Corporation: you have five thousand cows. None of them belongs to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A Greek Corporation: you have two cows borrowed from French and German banks. You eat both of them. The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF. The IMF lends you two cows. You eat both of them. The banks and the IMF call to collect thier cows/milk. You are out getting a haircut.

A British Corporation: you have two cows. Both are mad.

An Irish Corporation: you have two cows. One of them is a horse.

An American Corporation: you have two cows. You sell one and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you employ a consultant to analyse why the cow has died.

An Australian Corporation: you have two cows. Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A Chinese Corporation: you have two cows. You employ three hundred people to milk them. You claim you have full employment and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

An Indian Corporation: you have two cows. You worship them.

An Iraqi Corporation: everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of your country and invade you.
You still have no cows, but you are at last now a Democracy.

;-)

Rob