No BS, it's not.
I quoted you verbatim because I've noticed from other threads that you have a tendency to shift your position when challenged without acknowledging same.
How would a democratic socialist republic reduce the chances of exactly the same issues of self-interest occurring?
How would a democratic socialist republic reduce the chances of the centralisation of wealth and it being under the control of too few people?
To me the solution is more international laws and courts so that disputes between countries can be arbitrated in the same way that disputes between citizens can be. The USA is the biggest block to that but they are certainly not alone.
Hi Sarenco,
Ever try squeezing water?
Firefly.
I don't see how it changes anything on an international level.It won't reduce clashes of self-interest, but it can reduce the tensions that lead to eventually to conflict.
That is, it can provide a re-balancing of interests where the balance of those interests are skewed dispropotionately in the favour of one party over the other.
Many large companies have employee share option schemes. It is often the case that Stakeholders have more influence than Shareholders. Again, I don't see how a socialist government, i.e. a government which controls more of the nations wealth, changes anything.It can act as a mechanism to re-balance the interests of conflicting parties where one or more parties believes the interests of one or more parties are disproportionately skewed in favour of one or more parties over the others.
When Ryanair pilots protest their working conditions, it's not because they are greedy or resent the wealth being created by the company, it's because they believe their interests have been disproportionately devalued relative to the interests of other parties in the company.
In a totalitarian state they are told to accept their lot or leave. In a 'free' market capitalist system they are told that that is their 'market value'. Each is a source for conflict over the long-term.
In democratic socialism, the pilots have a stake in the company that makes it pivotal that their interests are addressed and protected, without adversely affecting the interests of other parties. In other words, it is in the self interest of Ryanair to address the self interest of pilots.
The USA is just the biggest boy in the playground, not the most aggressive or the most hostile. They just have the strongest punch.I agree too. That is why I am bemused when a particular crisis erupts the typical response is for look at 'Venezuela ', look at 'Castro', look at Gaddaffi, Sadam etc all the while ignoring the biggest block to international agreement, the US.
I don't see this as a socialist issue, just un-costed populism. It is no different to buying off pensioners with increases to the OAP or buying off Public Servant with Benchmarking.In a democratic socialist republic https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1003/909224-cabinet_maternity/
The topic is about regime change. That is neither a democratic policy nor an ideology associated with an open market capitalist system.
Many large companies have employee share option schemes. It is often the case that Stakeholders have more influence than Shareholders. Again, I don't see how a socialist government, i.e. a government which controls more of the nations wealth, changes anything.
So what we have now, is that what you are talking about?And again, a democratic socialist republic is not a state which controls the the nations wealth. It is a state that legislates and regulates for open trade in order to capitalise on resources in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way, and that the wealth generated from those resources are distributed in a fair and equal manner. That doesn't mean everyone gets an equal cut of the pie, just that they get their due worth. If pilots, or other workers are striking, it indicates a problem in re-distribution of wealth generated from their activities.
It's about a global conspiracy of international bankers to usurp democratically elected governments.
I think you are seeing nefarious conspiracy where there is none. If it was true then Obama would never have been elected and Sanders would never have run for the Democratic ticket in the USA. People just aren't that clever.Governments that don't conform to the 'trickle-up' economic policy in the control of western banking cartel. Venezuela doesn't conform to it, Saudi Arabia does. Hence the completely opposite approaches by the US, etc, to each regime.
I don't see this as a socialist issue, just un-costed populism. It is no different to buying off pensioners with increases to the OAP or buying off Public Servant with Benchmarking.
So what we have now, is that what you are talking about?
I do find it ironic that many of the USA's founding Fathers were fearful of bankers and capitalists with none other than Jefferson nearly starting a civil war in his opposition to the setting up of the Federal Reserve. He saw that it would lead to a concentration of wealth away from wealth producers and so would undermine the democratic process.
surely other, neighbouring countries would be doing their bit to help?
The guys who work in the banks are workers as well. They live in communities and are no less ethical and moral than anyone else. That's where the grand conspiracy theory falls down, and where socialist moral elitism becomes sickening.Exactly the point! Who are the wealth producers? The elite bankers or, the plumber, the engineer, the farmer, the cook, the cleaner, the accountant, the electrician, the computer programmer, etc...etc..the worker.
The same people who can't afford a home, or to start a family.
Yes, that's what I was referring to. The thing is that the world has moved on and while I'm a big fan of Jefferson (his fingerprints are all over the Bill of Rights) he wasn't always right.Where did Jefferson think the concentration of wealth would go too? The poor and needy?
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies,” Jefferson wrote. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power of currency shall be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
So if we are not socialist it's because we are too stupid to understand we are being sold a lie? Can I add educational elitism to the moral elitism of the socialist mindset?The political structures for democratic socialism are broadly in place, however, they are unduly dominated by people, in the absence of sufficient legislative and regulatory protections, are indoctrinated to the view that the market system is the only way to 'raise all boats'.
See the thing is that the average working person is better off in countries which are more capitalist. They are also more free.Paying off (as you call it) OAPs, public servants, unemployed, increasing tax credits, reduced VAT for hotels, 12.5% CT is nothing more than sticking plaster to avoiding the fundamental issues of our economy, that it the inevitable clash of interests between the centres of undue and disproportionate wealth and those who control it and those who cannot afford to keep the lights on.
The guys who work in the banks are workers as well. They live in communities and are no less ethical and moral than anyone else.
Why are the bankers such a big issue for you but for you the 20% who live on the backs of working people are in no way responsible for their own upkeep?
See the thing is that the average working person is better off in countries which are more capitalist. They are also more free.
Your ideal simply replaces the privately owned centers of undue and disproportionate wealth, which can be counterbalanced by the State, with a State which becomes the controller of disproportionate wealth (at which stage ownership becomes irrelevant) and that State isn't counterbalanced by anything.
Capitalism and Credit are not the same thing. I think we both agree with that. We don't need Socialism to reign in credit we just need limits on credit and a slow unwinding of the perpetual reliance of States on borrowed cash.I have no problem with anyone, including myself, making as much money as they possibly can. I do have a problem with somebody, including myself, making as much money as they possibly can by inducing a perpetuating debt based society.
See that's where it (the conspiracy) breaks down; the US Military Complex is funded by the US government through taxes. It is not funded by private credit. They have no dog in the fight.It is the banking institutions, compliant governments, protected by US military complex and NATO, that facilitates and sustains the perpetual debt based society.
See my previous comments on multiple threads about how international taxation systems need to be changed to tackle this. It doesn't require socialism though, far from it.We are caught in that system now, and the same will occur unless there is a massive transfer of wealth from capital to labour.
Eh, 20% of people in this country live on welfare. Them's the facts.There is no 20% of people who live off the backs off working people. That is a fallacy.
No, our socialist governments have done it on their behalf.As if somehow, the poor and less skilled have managed to coax you into handing over your hard earned cash.
Why not look at both?n reality, you need to look to the top is society. You can of course admire those who reach the top of their field and admit they deserve their rewards. But no harm in asking, exactly how much they get, and for what exactly?
What am I ignoring? In one breath you are correctly distinguishing that capitalism is an economic model and socialism is a political model (or doctrine) but in the next you are conflating the two.You are diverging again. I have already outlined my views on capitalism, yet you choose to ignore that.
How can the State not control the wealth but at the same time be the controller of the wealth through legislative and regulatory frameworks derived from democratic socialism? It either takes and spends the money or it doesn't. I don't like the idea of the tyranny of unbridled capitalism being replaced by the tyranny of the unbridled State. Nothing and nobody will waste money, and therefore hurt people, like the State.Diverging again, I have already outlined that the State is not the controller of wealth, but that wealth is controlled through legislative and regulatory frameworks derived from democratic socialism - a progressive tax system is an example of such.
Your still way off with that $ 4 breakeven oil price
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?