Volunteer During The Rugby League World Cup 2021 In Sheffield

[Arnold_Lane]

10 minutes ago, Anna B said:

'They' are the people in charge. And that's not necessarily who you think.

The governments of course, but really the elite 0.05%, at the top in the IMF, World banks, wealthy doners, Lobbyists, media, etc; the puppet-masters who influence the people we like to think are in charge. 

They meet up at World Economic Forums and Summits, and conferences like Bilderberg and Davos. 

 

Do you never look things up for yourself?

Ah ok, thought so; the shadowy elite who control all business and the media.
 

How familiar are you with the classic anti-Semitic canards? 
 

See any similarities?
 

 

[Anna B]

8 minutes ago, Arnold_Lane said:

Ah ok, thought so; the shadowy elite who control all business and the media.
 

How familiar are you with the classic anti-Semitic canards? 
 

See any similarities?
 

 

I take it you didn't watch the Nick Hanauer video.

It gets rather tiresome having to keep providing evidence for it to be ignored.

[Arnold_Lane]

21 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I take it you didn't watch the Nick Hanauer video.

It gets rather tiresome having to keep providing evidence for it to be ignored.

Having read and responded to your posts on this subject, what makes you think I’d have any interest in a video you recommend?

 

Do you see simularities between your previous posts about a shadowy elite and anti-Semitic canards?  
 

Your topic about economic policy/philosophy has descended into conspiracy nonsense with very distasteful parallels.  My only surprise is it took seven pages.

Edited January 19 by Arnold_Lane

[nikki-red]

The personal comments and bickering ends here.

 

Discuss the topic, not each other, and if you can’t post in a civil manner please don’t bother at all.

[Janus]

@Anna B

Let us assume that all that has been posted about neoliberalism on this thread is true and correct without any doubt.

 

I have a question in reference to you saying  "It will be too late by the time we wake up and realise ",  or words to that effect.

 

If  all those opposing the regime wanted to start  now and collectively to  do something to combat this regime of neoliberalism, what would you feel we should be doing? Please elabotate if possible.

Genuine question.
 

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

@Anna B

Let us assume that all that has been posted about neoliberalism on this thread is true and correct without any doubt.

 

I have a question in reference to you saying  "It will be too late by the time we wake up and realise ",  or words to that effect.

 

If  all those opposing the regime wanted to start  now and collectively to  do something to combat this regime of neoliberalism, what would you feel we should be doing? Please elabotate if possible.

Genuine question.
 

Good question. And sadly, I have to say I don't know the answer. I

If the ballot box is not going to effective then the only alternative seems to be direct action, and that requires a lot, and preferably all the people singing from the same hymn sheet. You only have to look at this thread/forum to see how difficult that is going to be. Getting the message across is key, and it's a really complex problem  with all sorts of side issues it's easy to get diverted into.

 

Mainstream media is not going to help so it falls to direct action like Occupy (remember them?) and social media which now has its own problems  beset as it is with trolls and fake news. The same thing happened with the impending financial crisis which was rife on the internet 3 years prior to the crash, but no one was listening or would believe them. 

 

There are possible solutions such as the one proposed by Nick Hanauer (link below) and his 'New Capitalism,' but he is just one man, (albeit a very rich one.) and depends on other entrepreneurs displaying some integrity too.

I think as the problems become more apparent to more people, more solutions will surface, if they're allowed to. 

 

I have hope that this can be sorted out if enough people have the will to do it.

 

 

 

[Shreddie]

In just about every country in the world one can only vote for the status quo as all  alternatives are  subdued by various financial and media marginalisation methods. Words like 'democracy' and 'communism' are bandied about usually to promote or demonise various political views.  Democracy and communism are similar in that no one knows whether either really works as no one has ever tried them.

[Janus]

Is this, and organisations like them the wrong direction Anna?
https://swp.org.uk/

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Shreddie said:

In just about every country in the world one can only vote for the status quo as all  alternatives are  subdued by various financial and media marginalisation methods. Words like 'democracy' and 'communism' are bandied about usually to promote or demonise various political views.  Democracy and communism are similar in that no one knows whether either really works as no one has ever tried them.

True, but it didn't use to be that way, and can change. 

[Anna B]

6 hours ago, Janus said:

Is this, and organisations like them the wrong direction Anna?
https://swp.org.uk/

They don't speak for me personally, but each to their own. 

 

I am not against Capitalism at all as long as it is responsible capitalism which benefits everybody. That requires an honest government with some integrity who keep their eye on the ball and watch out for breaches and unexpected consequences, Alongside that, we need a decent well regulated tax system which sees to it that everyone (and I mean everyone) pays their fair share of tax, (No dodgy tax accountants looking for multiple loop holes etc) These two things are the best and simplest way of generating income and redistributing it to where it's needed. Get those in place and much of the rest will follow. There would be enough money for projects, infrastructure and a decent welfare system, and the millionaires and billionaires would still have plenty of money for a nice life even if they can only afford one yacht instead of 3. 

 

The world is changing, in ways we have only just begun to imagine. It will present problems like environmental issues for sure, but should also be a time of great opportunities and new ways of doing things. It could be exciting and good for everyone, with enough for all and security for all.

Edited January 20 by Anna B

[El Cid]

25 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I am not against Capitalism as long as it is responsible capitalism which benefits everybody.

Well the Cameron Government promised a much higher minimum wage, they almost delivered it, so I guess you are almost happy.

The problem with any UK Government trying to please the masses with capitalism or socialism, is that we live in a international world, where some will think working for £2 per hour is good pay.

If you try to pay UK workers £20 per hour, they wont have a job, £10 per hour might just be ok.

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Not for me personally, but each to their own. 

 

I am not against Capitalism at all as long as it is responsible capitalism which benefits everybody. That requires an honest government with some integrity who keep their eye on the ball and watch out for breaches and unexpected consequences, Alongside that, we need a decent well regulated tax system which sees to it that everyone (and I mean everyone) pays their fair share of tax, (No dodgy tax accountants looking for multiple loop holes etc) These two things are the best and simplest way of generating income and redistributing it to where it's needed. Get those in place and much of the rest will follow. There would be enough money for projects, infrastructure and a decent welfare system, and the millionaires and billionaires would still have plenty of money for a nice life even if they can only afford one yacht instead of 3. 

 

The world is changing, in ways we have only just begun to imagine. It will present problems like environmental issues for sure, but should also be a time of great opportunities and new ways of doing things. It could be exciting and good for everyone, with enough for all and security for all.

Yes we have heard it all before.

 

It's a lovely ideological philosophy but once again we have that thorny issue of practical reality.

 

Who exactly is deciding what is fair?

 

What is being defined as a so-called decent welfare? We already are one of the top 5 biggest nations for government health expenditure last headline stats showing NHS budget of around £114 billion and a forecast figure on welfare expenditure amounting to over £200 billion. That's just two government sectors let alone all the billions spent on all the  other parts making up our public services.  Yet somehow, year on year people scream it's never enough.   What would it be?  

 

We then have the usual demands about so called "fair tax" as if it's all so simple  - but how do you  enforce companies to pay more tax when they are already paying what the law determines they have to pay? Make the laws stricter of course, but then theres the fallout when such companies decide somewhere else is cheaper to operate and just ups sticks and goes? What then happens to investment, jobs, trade?  What about the then inevitable friction created by heavy handed government controls and interference against the principles of a globalised economy, market freedoms, consumer choice? 

 

How is even possible to create some ideological level playing field when there is such a clear discrepancy between the so called "poverty" pleaded by people who have a minimum wage protection and/or state funded accommodation, state mandated benefits, free healthcare, free education.....when those exact same amount of monies would be seen as a small fortune to a different person in a different country without the additional luxury of top up government support? What do you think the consequences would be if someone took a broad brush approach to increase across the board? How would you deal with the inevitable hyperinflation which may come following it? What levels of controls would you feel appropriate to make sure one country does not attempt to gain a competitive edge or undercut others?

 

It really isn't that simple.

 

Edited January 20 by ECCOnoob