Bigga
Well-Known Member
Again, you offer nothing and you won't accept that.
You'd rather attack the person than the subject matter. Do you see why I say you offer nothing?
3 times I've mentioned as much.
Enjoy your cool cat victory.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Again, you offer nothing and you won't accept that.
You'd rather attack the person than the subject matter. Do you see why I say you offer nothing?
3 times I've mentioned as much.
Enjoy your cool cat victory.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
You’re such a patronising person for someone that’s lived your life and is in your position. Why the fuck do you assume you know more or are more widely read than @Ban-jani ? He’s a successful young bloke who’s making something of himself.
What's 'success' got to do with understanding the key-worker at the bottom of the pile being trampled on?
Proper neolib thinking.
chesterbells
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 23,730
I think the popular vote in America is a lot more left-leaning than the Electoral College allows it to be.
Agreed.
The way the Senate is elected is a demographic and democratic farce really. I fully understand historically why it’s like that, but really, California and Montana having the same amount of influence and say....
chesterbells
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 23,730
Possibly not. But who saw Trump coming? After 8 years of Obama, Trump was about as polar opposite as it was possible to get.
The unfortunate thing about US Politics, and the UK is actually the same, when was the last time you remember a GE being won by the candidate who wasn’t the most charismatic in the race?
Politics is becoming more and more like a reality TV gameshow.
Yeah, I’m not sure Trump won so big because he was especially anti-left, pro right as such, it’s more that he was anti “the system”, or said he was anyway.
In fact iirc some of the neo-liberal right of the Rep party, the establishment elite, weren’t fans of his populist, ‘free trade but on his terms’ type policies.
I have no clue what the fuck you mean by your last line, which is not unusual. It has NOTHING to do with anything I said. I note the irony of suggesting we should hire more key-workers instead of raising the wage as you can't do both because 'bankruptcy'.
You're obviously not, and have never been, a key-worker or you'd realise the reason why so many people have left that position (especially those in healthcare) is because it doesn't pay enough for stress levels the job enacts.
Your thought process makes this a catch-22 problem. This is the fear-mongering delivered by conservatism; that to make a country profitable you need to squeeze the bottom to make the top larger. What happens when you squeeze the bottom of anything to force top value of anything? I'll leave you to imagine.
Or, the alternative is to release the pressure at the bottom by not inflating the top, so much.
Why are you happy to artificially inflate the top(big business) if they are the pride of capitalism? Aren't they supposed to live and die by profit margin, for one? Ah no, cos they employ x amount of people that we have to keep afloat by... creating artificial money for them to survive as well. By your logic, both cannot happen when it is.
You need to think a bit further than what you're told.
I won't hold my breathe expecting you to address the relevant points.
I’m in favour of a competitive private sector with a safety net for those that struggle and public services being properly funded.
I’m not in favour of austerity but realise sometimes you need to penny pinch when there’s been a crisis, like 2008 and like there is now.
Thankfully the government have invested this time which hopefully means the economy bounces back, with people having cash.
If the government can afford it, without plunging the deficit into high levels of red again, I’m perfectly happy “to do both”.
The problem is you’re fixating on one issue of many, that the left want fixing and you genuinely do think there’s a magic money tree and the only reason the Tories don’t spend is because they hate the public sector and poor, which isn’t true... and I don’t even like the Tories.
Schools are struggling, prisons are at bursting point, the police are depleted, HMRC could do with more staff, people could do with better benefit payments and of course healthcare needs investment.
The problem is you just ignore the financial crash as if it was irrelevant and we should have just carried on spending money in these areas.
It’s exactly why that’s a protest position and didn’t get into power, because the public realise something actually needed to be done and difficult decisions made. The public gave Cameron a majority after 5 years of austerity and have continued voting Tory ever since.
I thought austerity went too far in the UK and Cameron and Osbourne were neoliberal ideologues, however that doesn’t mean austerity or at least some penny pinching wasn’t required.
My personal view is I’d rather they did it for longer but much less harsh but we’re here now and until this god awful virus, the Tories were ploughing money back in, now we’ve got the deficit to healthy levels.
Johnson’s manifesto was huge on public spending and Corbyn and McDonnell have been moaning that he’s copied some of their 2017 policies.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I’m in favour of a competitive private sector with a safety net for those that struggle and public services being properly funded.
I’m not in favour of austerity but realise sometimes you need to penny pinch when there’s been a crisis, like 2008 and like there is now.
Thankfully the government have invested this time which hopefully means the economy bounces back, with people having cash.
If the government can afford it, without plunging the deficit into high levels of red again, I’m perfectly happy “to do both”.
The problem is you’re fixating on one issue of many, that the left want fixing and you genuinely do think there’s a magic money tree and the only reason the Tories don’t spend is because they hate the public sector and poor, which isn’t true... and I don’t even like the Tories.
Schools are struggling, prisons are at bursting point, the police are depleted, HMRC could do with more staff, people could do with better benefit payments and of course healthcare needs investment.
The problem is you just ignore the financial crash as if it was irrelevant and we should have just carried on spending money in these areas.
It’s exactly why that’s a protest position and didn’t get into power, because the public realise something actually needed to be done and difficult decisions made. The public gave Cameron a majority after 5 years of austerity and have continued voting Tory ever since.
I thought austerity went too far in the UK and Cameron and Osbourne were neoliberal ideologues, however that doesn’t mean austerity or at least some penny pinching wasn’t required.
My personal view is I’d rather they did it for longer but much less harsh but we’re here now and until this god awful virus, the Tories were ploughing money back in, now we’ve got the deficit to healthy levels.
Johnson’s manifesto was huge on public spending and Corbyn and McDonnell have been moaning that he’s copied some of their 2017 policies.
At last! An actual reasoned and considered response! I actually applaud you!
I'm gonna skip to the bit where you accuse me of "ignoring the financial crash".
I want you to think about why that crash happened, who was affected and how that was 'solved'. just remember it was us, the taxpayer, that caused the crash, but we had to bail out the irresponsibility of playing fast and loose.
When you do that, ask yourself why certain businesses had to be bailed out and you'll be asking similar questions again, now.
If the economy is based on a finite amount of money in the world, how is possible to bail out anybody? Because if capitalism is a true concept, we would be dealing with a 'dead'/ 'frozen' economy. By definition, that means what we have in our pockets/ banks/ bonds is all there is left in any country.
So, a 'bailout' is the printing of fresh money, is it not? Or quantitative easing, a term I know you hate.
The next question goes; how long does that go on for and surely the action of inflating the economy allows for wage rises? Money is finite, after all, unless it disappears into the hoarding of profit motives and then you're back to square one.
So, by understanding that a wage increase can happen, you can hire more whilst avoiding people leaving the necessary and important jobs AND get to stimulate the industries as people spend more within it.
That's called a win-win.
How anyone can argue against that baffles me.
At last! An actual reasoned and considered response! I actually applaud you!
I'm gonna skip to the bit where you accuse me of "ignoring the financial crash".
I want you to think about why that crash happened, who was affected and how that was 'solved'. just remember it was us, the taxpayer, that caused the crash, but we had to bail out the irresponsibility of playing fast and loose.
When you do that, ask yourself why certain businesses had to be bailed out and you'll be asking similar questions again, now.
If the economy is based on a finite amount of money in the world, how is possible to bail out anybody? Because if capitalism is a true concept, we would be dealing with a 'dead'/ 'frozen' economy. By definition, that means what we have in our pockets/ banks/ bonds is all there is left in any country.
So, a 'bailout' is the printing of fresh money, is it not? Or quantitative easing, a term I know you hate.
The next question goes; how long does that go on for and surely the action of inflating the economy allows for wage rises? Money is finite, after all, unless it disappears into the hoarding of profit motives and then you're back to square one.
So, by understanding that a wage increase can happen, you can hire more whilst avoiding people leaving the necessary and important jobs AND get to stimulate the industries as people spend more within it.
That's called a win-win.
How anyone can argue against that baffles me.
The crash happened because greedy fucking bankers were high on money and didn’t stop to think.
I am also aware who bailed them out and it’s why I’ve been saying the banks need to help us now, like we did them.
Of course you can print more money but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, look at Zimbabwe. You do it when you’re in a crisis and that’s the last time the US did it, in 2008, to get them through it.
In the UK we’ve been running an experiment since 2010 to slowly continue doing it and I think it’s too early to say if it’s worked but the economy was doing well until COVID-19 fucked things up.
I don’t have a view on how long quantitative easing goes on for, I’m not an economics expert, I just know there’s a very fine line and you really need to get the balance right.
If you print your way to utopia then everyone would but you clearly cannot and therefore you need to act nearly as though money is finite, that’s just sensible fiscal policy.
As I’ve said, I’m not opposed to giving anyone a wage increase, they should happen naturally as the economy grows anyway, my point is that the left think making decisions like that is as easy as clicking my your fingers.
Quite often the money has to be pulled from elsewhere and when nurses are being given a pay increase, that may mean less police and more crime. Then the left moan about that and repeat with all sectors.
Of course we could increase quantitative easing but then inflation goes up and thousands more end up in poverty.
It’s why I’m a moderate in economics, you need to find a healthy balance and it’s why I quite liked Blair.
Anyway this is clogging up the Democrat Nomination thread so happy to discuss elsewhere?
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,861
FOR THE RECORDYeah, I’m not sure Trump won so big because he was especially anti-left, pro right as such, it’s more that he was anti “the system”, or said he was anyway.
In fact iirc some of the neo-liberal right of the Rep party, the establishment elite, weren’t fans of his populist, ‘free trade but on his terms’ type policies.
Trump did NOT win big. He scraped a victory in a few KEY states with decent electoral votes, which greatly exaggerates the perception of victory...which, of course, he further exaggerates!
Official 2016 Result: Trump 304 vs Clinton 227
That looks big, but it came down to THREE STATES: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
MI: 16 Delegates, difference in the vote: 10,704; 0.22%
PA: 20 Delegates, difference in the vote: 44,292; 0.72%
WI: 10 Delegates, difference in the vote: 22,748; 0.76%
Total difference in Delegates: 46
Total difference in the votes: 77,744
Total NATIONAL votes cast: 136,669,237
Total NATIONAL % Diff: 0.056%
Simply switch HALF+1 of those votes from Trump to Clinton:
MI: 5,352
PA: 22,147
WI: 11,375
==========
Ttl: 38,874
==========
38,874 KEY VOTES in three key states changed the entire trajectory of the world.
Switching those 38,874 votes from Trump to Clinton would have switched:
TRUMP 304 - CLINTON 227, into
TRUMP 258 - CLINTON 273, with 270 Delegates being the magic number needed to be President!
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,861
Btw, Bigga and BanJani, you’re both talking a lot of bollocks with facts that aren’t facts!
“There’s only a finite amount of money”????
“The USA only printed money in 2008 and not since”????
I’m not sure what planet you’re on, but not this one!
“There’s only a finite amount of money”????
“The USA only printed money in 2008 and not since”????
I’m not sure what planet you’re on, but not this one!
chesterbells
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 23,730
FOR THE RECORD
Trump did NOT win big. He scraped a victory in a few KEY states with decent electoral votes, which greatly exaggerates the perception of victory...which, of course, he further exaggerates!
Official 2016 Result: Trump 304 vs Clinton 227
That looks big, but it came down to THREE STATES: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin
MI: 16 Delegates, difference in the vote: 10,704; 0.22%
PA: 20 Delegates, difference in the vote: 44,292; 0.72%
WI: 10 Delegates, difference in the vote: 22,748; 0.76%
Total difference in Delegates: 46
Total difference in the votes: 77,744
Total NATIONAL votes cast: 136,669,237
Total NATIONAL % Diff: 0.056%
Simply switch HALF+1 of those votes from Trump to Clinton:
MI: 5,352
PA: 22,147
WI: 11,375
==========
Ttl: 38,874
==========
38,874 KEY VOTES in three key states changed the entire trajectory of the world.
Switching those 38,874 votes from Trump to Clinton would have switched:
TRUMP 304 - CLINTON 227, into
TRUMP 258 - CLINTON 273, with 270 Delegates being the magic number needed to be President!
Agreed, poorly chosen phrase on my part. Please imagine the words ‘so big’ weren’t included. Stand by the rest of it though.