a question I keep coming back to is how the worlds #1 economy / economic powerhouse for most of the last century / and champion of free market economics has currently run up debts of 14 trillion…

I return to my previous point regards boom and bust being a natural cycle!

Lifer – on all those cites you’ve posted, I’d point you towards the comparative conditions in the countryside for rural villagers in the same countries!

Wonders where first capitalist squirrel found first nut without capitalism to grow tree from which nut fell

Junky, in case the other squirrels haven’t noticed, in great great granddads days, the population of squirrels in the wood was a quarter of what it is now – and there was only one nut tree… if it wasn’t for g.g.granddad’s dream of owning his own nut tree, there would still only be one nut tree in the wood, and there would be less nuts per squirrel… any other squirrel could have planted one of their nuts, but they ate them themselves, they were not willing to take the risk!

obviously, some squirrels have noticed that recently owl populations have risen, and have connected the increase in nut trees to rising owl numbers, showing that they cause global hooting, and are currently campaigning against planting any more nut trees!

Ah yes – ‘human nature’. Now there’s a thing…………is it really that human nature is this fixed unevolvable set of ‘me-me-me’s (and screw the rest of you)’, or is it that human nature is a set of variables which changes as the social and economic context changes – but we’ve been so stuck for so long in the capitalist context that we accept what the system’s ideological enforcers tell us when they say ‘you can’t change human nature’?

There’s been a lot of interesting research recently about altruism in both animal and human behaviour (which I am too much of a techno-dunce to get links to on this site)……….makes you think though, cos if we are so immutably selfish and hard-wired for personal (not collective) gain, why is there continuing evidence of unselfish acts?

C’mon Zulu, Stoner et al – you didn’t disappoint me last time. Allow yourselves to be goaded again!

Boom and bust, don’t you mean delusion then reality?

Capitalism only works if a bunch of fools buy an even bigger bunch of junk, they don’t really need.

The problem is that people are sick of the system and are refusing to buy shite anymore.

Hence the reason we are not recovering from the recession, no argument in the defense of capitalism can hold up’

The state of the global economy and environment, as well as the poor quality of life due to poverty in developing countries and stress depression and mental I’ll health in wealthier countries, means it is no longer a viable system.

The only question now, is how do we regain control of the resources of our species, from the deranged lunatics who now squander them?

I dunno about you. But I’ve got this picture of Kaesae winning the euro millions and buying a million bearings to inspect, then spreading the rest of the cash around to the needy. Bless ya m8 🙂

I return to my previous point regards boom and bust being a natural cycle!

What, nothing to do with the exploitation of foreign lands and the enslavement of their peoples then?

Do you have any idea why Britain became such a Global power? Why we all still live in relative luxury while half the World gets **** all? Why you can ride a nice mountain bike? How you came to have such a decent standard of education? Because others were denied basic essentials to prioovide Britain with luxuries, that’s why.

Capitalism is all about making the few rich at the expense of the many. Even you know that.

Britain is in debt because it can no longer exploit the labour and resources of it’s former empire, and produces bugger all itself any more. Britain never produced sufficient for it’s own needs within it’s own borders, not within the Modern era anyway; it simply took, by force, that which it wanted from others. Now we can no longer exploit the Darkies, and no longer even produce anything worth selling, we’re stuffed. And now the Darkies can do the same jobs we do, only far cheaper. Cue time for another War to secure precious resources, then….

Why does my iTunes on random shuffle keep playing Joy Division? ❓

What, ‘Love Will Tear Us Apart…’?

Bizarre.

I’m sure they wrote ‘Agadoo’ in their spare time. 😀

Britain is in debt because it can no longer exploit the labour and resources of it’s former empire, and produces bugger all itself any more.

Part truth, part falsehood, part somewhere inbetween.

Britain continues to exploit countries abroad specifically the labour of global South countries who provide the cheap consumer goods at prices that we can’t afford to produce ourselves. At the same time we fill our shops and keep our economy ticking over without going beyond the carbon limitations of Kyoto.
Imperialism isn’t over it just evolved.

Lifer – on all those cites you’ve posted, I’d point you towards the comparative conditions in the countryside for rural villagers in the same countries!

Eh? You said that people close to wealth get the benefit of it, and I showed that’s monkey balls.

And in your Squirrel/Nut analogy Squirrels not related to Grandad would have to collect the nuts/clean the nest in order to earn some from Grandad’s family, who are the ones who decide the value of a collecter/cleaner’s time (depending on how many surplus nuts there are, or rather how many nuts Grandad’s family decide are surplus).

Maybe over time a clever squirrel would weave a sack from grass which meant they could collect more nuts before returning to the warehouse, and as there are only so many nuts needed there would be too many squirrels collecting, and some would lose their role and have no means of earning nuts. But Grandad and his family would be okay sitting on their massive pile of nuts so never mind the others.

Kevevs – Member
I dunno about you. But I’ve got this picture of Kaesae winning the euro millions and buying a million bearings to inspect, then spreading the rest of the cash around to the needy. Bless ya m8

Odd! my fantasies include gorgeous women serving me cold beer on warm breasts 😉

And although I like to help people, I’m too much of a realist, so the chances of me giving my money away rather than reinvesting it in humanity as much as I can, isn’t going to happen any time soon.

Every individual and nation in the world has great potential, if I do all I can to help them realize that potential, I do all I can to ensure the survival of our species and my own survival as well.

I simply see it as humanity verses the universe or creation, why do I choose to see it like that?

Because me verses the universe, is a truly scary thought!

Lifer – the people in those cities are (generally) better off than those in the countryside – as a (general) rule, thats why they and their families moved to the cities.

Lets evaluate your alternative – maybe a quick look at the non capitalist utopia’s that we see in China, North Korea and Cuba… The squirrels don’t appear too happy there do they?

Elfin – do you really think that India would be in a better state without the infrastructure and cultural legacy of Empire?

Kaesae

Boom and bust, don’t you mean delusion then reality?

Yes, I’m sure that the Lemmings are just deluding themselves over boom and bust:

“Lifer – on all those cites you’ve posted, I’d point you towards the comparative conditions in the countryside for rural villagers in the same countries!”
Eh? You said that people close to wealth get the benefit of it, and I showed that’s monkey balls

You might have thought you showed that, but did you actually read what you just quoted? If those living in the relatively rich cities are better off than those living in the same countries outside those cities, then however badly they are off in an absolute sense, that actually quite neatly proves the point that you’re better off being close to wealth.

Those pictures are very sad, but they really don’t prove anything at all. I mean I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to find a picture of people living in poverty in wonderful (ironic) London. There is poverty everywhere – the point of the original suggestion is that poverty is decreased by others being wealthy, not that it’s totally eliminated. The trouble is, in situations like those capitalism and the wealth of others is insufficient in itself to bring people up to a decent standard of living, even if it makes things better than they might otherwise have been.

On the squirrel analogy – it’s a really rubbish analogy, as there’s not a fixed supply of money in the same way there’s a fixed supply of nuts (certainly not within a community as small as a town). The thing is, the big boss might now have 100 nuts where he only had 50 before, but due to wealth he’s created, and his reliance on the workers to make him more, they now have 6 nuts rather than the 5 they had before. The inequality might have increased, but you’d really have to be special to argue that therefore the workers are worse off than they were before.

I refer you all to Dervla Murphy’s book ‘Full Tilt’

One womans adventure (by bicycle) through lands (at the time the book was published) still fairly unsullied by the Empirical overseers capitalist nightmare..

Places where it would appear that life is a lot more valuable and the landscapes are seemingly populated by far less callous and blustering breadheaded buffoons..

It seems such a shame that we chose to step out of Eden.. look at what we’ve become.. It’s enough to make one weep

EAT THE RICH

but you’d really have to be special to argue that therefore the workers are worse off than they were before if you shared them out equally.

FTFY

The thing is, the big boss might now have 100 nuts where he only had 50 before, but due to wealth he’s created, and his reliance on the workers to make him more

Everyone needs everyone but only the boss creates the wealth 8O. Despite the reliance on workers to create this they get much less than the boss.

The trouble is, in situations like those capitalism and the wealth of others is insufficient in itself to bring people up to a decent standard of living,

It is but it is insufficiently evenly spread to achieve the decent standard.
In terms of wealth the top 1% own 40%,top 2% of the population own 50% and the top 10% 85 %. However the bottom 50% have only 1 % of the wealth. Given we are in a capitalist world it seems fair to conclude that this is also what it does and many conclude this is not fair.

You might have thought you showed that, but did you actually read what you just quoted? If those living in the relatively rich cities are better off than those living in the same countries outside those cities, then however badly they are off in an absolute sense, that actually quite neatly proves the point that you’re better off being close to wealth.

Around 7 million people in Mexico City live below the poverty line, that’s 40% (the national average is between 17% and 20%). A third of the population live in shanty towns.

Elfin – do you really think that India would be in a better state without the infrastructure and cultural legacy of Empire?

Oh right I forgot; they’re all ignorant graceless savages incapable of organising their own society, and needed the clever White men to come and sort things out for them. Of course, How stupid of me. Any evidence of culture and language predating anything in the British Isles must obviously be made up.

🙄

Because of course, the British occupation of the Subcontinent was purely for altruistic reasons, to help the indigenous peoples gain enlightenment and self-determination. Nothing to do with the exploitation of vast natural resources of course. Oh no.

You know, I think it’s just possible that the peoples of the Subcontinent might possibly have been able to make a fair go of things, had they not been subjected to foreign rule, virtual enslavement, starvation and genocide. As well as having their valuable resources of their own lands forcibly taken from them by an oppressive foreign nation hell bent on increasing it’s Imperialist control and own national wealth.

Just a thought, like…

Around 7 million people in Mexico City live below the poverty line, that’s 40% (the national average is between 17% and 20%). A third of the population live in shanty towns.

Source?

According to wiki:
Mexico City is the wealthiest city in all of Latin America, with a GDP per capita of $25,258. Mexico City’s poverty rate is also the lowest in Mexico, and its Human Development Index (2009-MHDI) is the highest in the nation at 0.9327.

And, according to another report:

According to Jaime Saavedra, World Bank Poverty Manager for Latin America, Mexico has made considerable strides in poverty reduction since the late 1990s, with performance above the Latin American average. Saavedra explained that: “Between 2000 and 2004, extreme poverty fell almost seven percentage points, which can be explained by development in rural areas, where extreme poverty fell from 42.4 per cent to 27.9 per cent. The urban poverty rate, however, got stuck at 11.3 per cent.”

See that – rural poverty rate of 2-4 times the urban poverty rates – point proved!

Elfin – can’t be arsed mate – just google “post colonial guilt” and you’ll probably find a picture of yourself 🙄

can’t be arsed mate

More like; whenever your bigoted narrow-minded views are challenged, you shut up shop, because you know you can’t actually form an intelligent and reasoned response free from your jingoistic and parochial prejudices.

Don’t you have an EDL meeting in the morning? You’d best get some sleep then.

Night night.

Actually Elfin if you really want a serious answer, then you want to go away and consider the insistence on perpetuating a caste system that does more to maintain inhumane levels of poverty than the colonial period ever did.

Sorry Elfin – but you can’t blame the Caste system on the Raj!

http://www.littleabout.com/India/india-caste-system-handwork-british-raj-dna-proves/36180/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/6224560/Indias-caste-system-is-thousands-of-years-old-DNA-shows.html

Caste system, Indian! 😉

Junky – why don’t you try arguing with the point I’m making rather than trying to go off in your own direction all the time? Why are the workers worse off when they have 6 nuts instead of 5, just because the boss has 100 nuts instead of 50?

Source of 40% poverty rate

National rate

The differing rates are probably down to:

“roughly half of the area [shanty towns] falls within the City, while half classed as in the state of Mexico”

so some ignore the area outside ‘the city’

Actually Elfin if you really want a serious answer

..I’ll know not to ask you. It’s ok, I knew that anyway. Interesting attempt to segway onto the subject of the Hindu Caste System though. Not that it’s relevant in this discussion, but one for the future perhaps.

Labby is often very keen, I notice, to use statistics and figures to support his arguments, yet often ignores the reality. Stats and figures are subject to manipulation, and very often, those provided by political entities don’t tell the whole story, or are cooked up in order to support political ends.

I prefer to look at real life. Like the situation here in Tower Hamlets, which has some of the greatest wealth and highest levels of social deprivation in the UK. Since the development of Canary Wharf, and the increasing desire to own cars, local traffic has multiplied. Billions of pounds have been spent on building and maintaining roads, while local services have often been neglected. Asthma rates in young children have increased alarmingly, linked directly to increased air pollution from road traffic and construction. Diseases such as Rickets, directly related to poverty, have made a comeback. Drug addiction has increased. Reliance on state benefits, especially Housing Benefits, has increased. Etc. Local adult further education has been all but destroyed. Many local libraries have been closed. A poverty of education now exists in a more extreme manner than it has in a long time.

Meanwhile, the average individual ‘wealth’ has increased. This does not mean more people are earning more, just that a small number are earning disproportionate amounts relative to most others, which skews the figures somewhat. As the cost of housing increases, the poorer residents are compelled to leave the area, for cheaper accommodation elsewhere. To places where there is less employment. So, social problems are simply moved elsewhere. So it’s not that the poor enjoy the benefits of Capitalism, but quite the opposite; they are forced from their homes and communities by economic pressures, and the spaces left by them are taken up by others able to benefit from their departure. There is now a ‘Poverty of Community’; a social vacuum where people do not mix, share and enjoy together.

That’s the real story. The one which goldfish bowl dwellers like Labby can’t see, so blinded are they, by the vision of Capitalist Utopia.

extreme poverty fell almost seven percentage points, which can be explained by development in rural areas, where extreme poverty fell from 42.4 per cent to 27.9 per cent. The urban poverty rate, however, got stuck at 11.3 per cent.”

See that – rural poverty rate of 2-4 times the urban poverty rates – point proved

The poverty reduction was in the rural areas. I am unsure as to why you think this proves your point. Surely urban areas would have reduced poverty and rural areas have been unchanged or worsened if living near rich people made you better of?

Aracer

I am not going off on a tangent – why not do a percentage calulation of all the nuts and see what percentage they have and see how much better off they are relative to all nuts. They have more nuts [ I am happy to confirm for you that 6 is indeed more than 5 – I am less convinced this can only be achieved via capitalist means of production ] and a smaller percentage of all nuts- this is maths. Neither of us can wiggle here. I am not sure this is strictly speaking better off – total yes percentage no-and they are certainly not as large an improvement in wealth as the boss – whch is what we see in the real world re inequitous spread of wealth.
Why not reply to the points I made after quoting you rather than saying I am going off on a tangent?Are you still maintaining their is insufficient wealth or are you willing to accept that the issue is it’s inequitous spread?

Friends, numpties and country peeps.

I have listened to a lot of arguments and a lot of individuals going on about this or that. About theories and systems and well a lot of different material has been put forward.

However no definitive argument has been proposed.

Here is mine, I don’t care for an argument that says look at the good of capitalism, look at all the wealth it creates and all the benefits as a species we have due to this wealth.

THE WHOLE **** WESTERN WORLD IS IN DEPT, DEPT = -WEALTH, SO SHURRUP!!!

ARGUMENT SETTLED AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have created an way of life or an environment where the very worst characteristics the human mind is capable of are being cultivated. Greed, lust for power, deception, heartlessness, all of these lead to a destabilization of our way of life.

We as a species require to create an environment where the best characteristics are rewarded, loyalty, adaptability, cooperation. We need to create an environment where we encourage people to fullfil their potential and increase their output.

Yes I know that I am simplifying things in your eyes, but to my way of seeing it, I am being direct.

Mutually beneficial arrangements are the corner stone of true trading, Capitalism is just organised global tyrrany.

If the fools in charge can’t find a way to gather resources without destroying the planet, should they really be in charge ❓

A free market economy could be the way forward.

Its at least worth a try.