Yeah, southern Democrats – you’ve picked some really left wing types there. Even their president JFK, thought they were a bunch of nutters – and sent in the National Guard to enable black students to attend universities when Southern “Democrat” politicians tried to stop them (I think…could be wrong there)

So, some left-wingers are nutters, and some aren’t? Sounds a bit like the rest of the political spectrum tbh.

I’d suggest that Southern Democrats weren’t left wing at all, nor would they describe themselves as such. Anyway, the thread is about right wing nutters. You actually picked a good example of right wing nutters.

My sister in law is a republican, whilst being a lovely lady. She believes in individual enterprise and less interference from the government. So if you want to be successful you have to try hard and succeed. I have not discussed the matter in depth with her but she seems to share her opinions with her father with whom I have. He thinks that you should be on your own, and you should fight for a good job and so on. The problem with this viewpoint is that some people are not really capable of succeeding in a competitive world. For there to be winners, there have to be losers – and he would not accept this point.

I dunno how he thinks you can have a race without anyone coming last…

Anyway, the thread is about right wing nutters. You actually picked a good example of right wing nutters

Highlights the way it all gets a bit hard to decide what’s really right wing, and what’s left. Is Tony Blair, for example, right or left wing?

Anyway, right wingers that aren’t complete nutters: the vast majority of them. Palin and her Tea Party friends are often listed as examples of right wing extremists, but there’s a reason a significant proportion of the US population supports them, and that wouldn’t happen if their politics were completely out of touch with local opinion.

I think the idea (ideology) is that even those coming last in his world would at least be independent and less of a burden on the state….

….whereas those who come last in a socialist world are usually not doing anything very much at all except being supported by the state.

For what its worth there has to be some kind of middle ground but people most motivated to get into politics usually have firmly held Left or Right wing beliefs and dont want to compromise.

The problem with this viewpoint is that some people are not really capable of succeeding in a competitive world. For there to be winners, there have to be losers – and he would not accept this point.

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less. This is the problem with the obsessive highlighting of the gap between the rich and poor in the UK: sure, the difference is growing, but 30 years ago a poor family quite possibly wouldn’t have a TV or a fridge, these days they do.

For what its worth there has to be some kind of middle ground but people most motivated to get into politics usually have firmly held Left or Right wing beliefs and dont want to compromise.

This.

Also I think it’s getting harder to be an individual in politics these days – on both the right and the left parties are becoming more organised, with less tolerance for deviation from the official message.

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less

Then it’s not a win. The losers in the West are still much better off than the losers in Africa, so on a global scale they would be considered winners; however that’s still not a good enough answer.

To put it another way – only one person can be the CEO of a big company. A few more can be top managers, lots of people can be affluent middle management, and loads can be poorly paid factory workers struggling to get by.

So, some left-wingers are nutters, and some aren’t?

Some left-wingers are undoubtedly nutters ……..without a shadow of a doubt – I’ve met plenty of them.

The difference is that left-winger nutters tend to get ignored, whilst right-wing nutters get massive media coverage.

It’s probably down to money. And the fact that right-wing nutters have loads of it. And they own newspapers. And TV/radio stations. And have expensive political campaigns.

So it’s ok for there to be a massive gap between rich and poor as long as the poor have fridges and tvs?

So it’s ok for there to be a massive gap between rich and poor as long as the poor have fridges and tvs?

You’d rather we went to a socialist style economy like Cuba or Venezuela? Other than envy, what’s the real problem with a growing wealth divide?

To put it another way – only one person can be the CEO of a big company. A few more can be top managers, lots of people can be affluent middle management, and loads can be poorly paid factory workers struggling to get by.

Except that even a poorly paid factory worker is a lot better off today that he or she would have been a 100 years ago.

envy

😆

Also left wing nutter policies are about being nice and helping your fellow human being even when they are not practical policies, whereas right wing policies are about telling your fellow human being to go fk himself.

So it’s ok for there to be a massive gap between rich and poor as long as the poor have fridges and tvs?

Arguably, yes. If I am happy and comfortably off, and then the top 0.5% of the country go and make gazillions of pounds in some boom somewhere, should I suddenly become dissatisfied with my job and salary? Would such a sentiment not simply be jealousy?

I would consider it very important for a reasonable slice of that extra billions to be paid in tax to improve the country, but that would not transfer directly to extra material wealth for the everyday folk would it?

What would you rather? High taxes on the super rich then give every citizen a dividend of some kind? Would be a little unfair, no?

Except that even a poorly paid factory worker is a lot better off today that he or she would have been a 100 years ago

Yep, thanks to a couple of centuries of left wing thinkers.

Highlights the way it all gets a bit hard to decide what’s really right wing, and what’s left.

Not in the example cited only you seem confused about this

Anyway, right wingers that aren’t complete nutters: the vast majority of them. Palin and her Tea Party friends are often listed as examples of right wing extremists, but there’s a reason a significant proportion of the US population supports them, and that wouldn’t happen if their politics were completely out of touch with local opinion.
I think appealing to right wing nutters is not proof that you are not a right wing nutter.

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less.

I genuinely laughed at that

This is the problem with the obsessive highlighting of the gap between the rich and poor in the UK: sure, the difference is growing, but 30 years ago a poor family quite possibly wouldn’t have a TV or a fridge, these days they do.

Excellent I am poorer but now I have a fridge and a TV GAWD bless trickle down capitalism I am less well off but apparently better off.

This is the problem with the obsessive highlighting of the gap between the rich and poor in the UK: sure, the difference is growing, but 30 years ago a poor family quite possibly wouldn’t have a TV or a fridge, these days they do.

It’s very important to highlight the gap between the rich and poor, because the financial gap between even the middle classes and the next rung up the ladder is obscene. Some people will say that people aren’t poor in this country because they have the TV or the fridge…that’s because their definition of poor is what it was in the 19th-20th century. You have to judge what poor is in relation to how the other half live in this country, so to speak.

There isn’t a clear simple definition of poor, just as there isn’t a simple clear definition of left wing/right wing anymore. As an example, some people would regard Z-11’s diatribe as positively “socialist” in some American quarters.

It’s probably down to money. And the fact that right-wing nutters have loads of it. And they own newspapers. And TV/radio stations. And have expensive political campaigns.

This. Reminds me of a particular Australian whose name was dirt in these parts until some hoodies turned up and trashed the joint.

You’d rather we went to a socialist style economy like Cuba or Venezuela? Other than envy, what’s the real problem with a growing wealth divide?

That’s one dimensional thinking: Just because he doesn’t like the obscenity of the wealth divide created by the current form of capitalism, doesn’t mean he wants a total socialist state.

I’d go as far to say that’s a right-wing way of thinking.

You have to judge what poor is in relation to how the other half live in this country, so to speak

Well exactly. Define poor.

For me, it’s when lack of money genuinely impinges on day to day quality of life and you have difficulty in obtaining basic essential needs.

That’s one dimensional thinking: Just because he doesn’t like the obscenity of the wealth divide created by the current form of capitalism, doesn’t mean he wants a total socialist state.

Don’t you go putting words in my mouth!

Oh, actually, go on then…that’s more or less what I thought, only I was still laughing at the old “envy” line.

Also left wing nutter policies are about being nice and helping your fellow human being even when they are not practical policies, whereas right wing policies are about telling your fellow human being to go fk himself.

Not really, Stalin and Mao certainly weren’t adverse to hurting their fellow human beings. And a protectionist left wing politician is protecting his country’s interests, usually at the expense of the third world.

For me, it’s when lack of money genuinely impinges on day to day quality of life and you have difficulty in obtaining basic essential needs.

Then you have to reset what you think poor is, because you are defining it into one simple definition.

Excellent I am poorer but now I have a fridge and a TV GAWD bless trickle down capitalism I am less well off but apparently better off.

Exactly. People may have the TV and the fridge, but it doesn’t mean they are upwardly mobile, or somehow better off.

That’s one dimensional thinking: Just because he doesn’t like the obscenity of the wealth divide created by the current form of capitalism, doesn’t mean he wants a total socialist state.

Obscenity? In what way?

Being a crazy dictator kind of takes you out of the normal political spectrum – I’d call Stalin and Mao nutters not left wingers.

Point still stands 🙂

However the protectionism issue is an interesting one. Globalism has undoubtedly brought wealth to the developing world, but is it the right kind of wealth in the right places? Sweatshops anyone? NAFTA? On the other hand, Bangalore?

People may have the TV and the fridge, but it doesn’t mean they are upwardly mobile, or somehow better off

No? Define better off?

My Mum used to teach kids in the 70s with no shoes. That doesn’t happen any more.

Then you have to reset what you think poor is, because you are defining it into one simple definition.

Seems a reasonable starting point, though.

For me, it’s when lack of money genuinely impinges on day to day quality of life and you have difficulty in obtaining basic essential needs.

no one in the UK needs to live in conditions where they cannot obtain basic essential needs.. benefits are available..

(if you don’t include choice, recreation and travel as basic essential needs.. but that’s another thread..)

but surely someone who has only exactly enough to continue to exist could be considered poor..?

Is the ability to carry out bike maintenance a basic essential need for you..?
would your life be poor without it..?

Not really, you can all win, just that some people win less.

I genuinely laughed at that

Why? It’s called a non-zero-sum game.

Perhaps I should’ve worded myself differently. I do consider choice, recreation and travel as basic needs.

Mogrim – good point about it being non-zero sum. Perhaps this was what my FiL actually meant by ‘success’.

Lefties as just as nuts

but surely someone who has only exactly enough to continue to exist could be considered poor..?

Definitely, though I’d argue they are considerably better off than a poor person a 100 years ago.

That’s cos we have that thing called the welfare state.

molgrips – Member
My Mum used to teach kids in the 70s with no shoes. That doesn’t happen any more.

You bought her some shoes?

That’s cos we have that thing called the welfare state.

Paid for by a capitalist system.

Edit: lol@druidh 🙂

Obscenity? In what way?

Millionaire households (those with $1 million or more in assets under management) represented 0.7% of the world’s total and owned $33.2 trillion — or about a third of the world’s total. Households worth less than $100,000 saw a slight decline in their assets, from $13.5 trillion to $13.4 trillion.

the worlds three richest people are worth more than the 48 poorest countries..obscene in that sense ? I know you dont get it someone up there [molgrips?]said that right wingers lacked empathy so dont fret.

the worlds three richest people are worth more than the 48 poorest countries..obscene in that sense ? I know you dont get it someone up there [molgrips?]said that right wingers lacked empathy so dont fret.

The obscenity is that there are countries that poor out there – chucking in a meaningless soundbite about 3 rich people and 48 poor countries is just muddying the waters – if they weren’t rich (and noone substitued them), would the other countries not be poor?

It’s called a non-zero-sum game.

In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

what do we call some one with losses and someone with gains? ? oh yes a winner and a looser win less weller. The concept of winning and winning less well is what I laughed at, it is semantic twaddle.

The concept of winning and winning less well is what I laughed at, it is semantic twaddle.

No it isn’t. Betting is zero-sum, we both bet a tenner on the outcome of the match and winner takes all. Working isn’t zero-sum, my boss gets the benefit of my labour, and I get the benefit of a wage. We both win something. If he wins a bit more, so be it.

EDIT: Bollocks to it. Can’t be arsed.

simple kill them take their money and give it to the poor countries

Betting is zero-sum, we both bet a tenner on the outcome of the match and winner takes all.

so the one who is not the winner and now has nothing and is down £10 is still a win less weller obviously 🙄
How is there no looser in this scenario?

so the one who is not the winner and now has nothing and is down £10 is still a win less weller obviously
How is there no looser in this scenario?

You really haven’t quite understood the difference between zero-sum and non-zero-sum, have you? This is the zero-sum example, and quite clearly has a loser. Non-zero-sum may have two winners, a winner and a loser, or two losers.

Bedtime, anyway. Night.