As does the massive spread of the disease in the first place

Are you honestly saying that the spead of HIV in Africa is due to capitalism? What the hell are you talking about?

That simply isn’t true. The bulk (around 80%) of the global population live in poverty, living on less than $10 a day. Around 50% live on less than $2.50.

Yes. I know. But what makes you think that they would be any richer in a non capitalistic world?

I very explicitly conceded that capitalism isn’t fair, so I’m not sure what that statistic is supposed to prove.

Or you could throw in a few suggestions yourself instead of defending a failed system.

My whole point is that I don’t think it has failed.

“Failed” (as I am rashly defining it) would mean that it performs more poorly than another system that we could have used. It would have failed to be the best option we have.

Not managing to make the world a perfect place is not, in my opinion, failure.

As the OP’s rather awesome video shows, capitalism leads to huge fluctuations, such as the banking crisis where we all got rogered for the benefit of the few. But we have all been free to pursue our chosen paths, and rewarded in proportion to the value of our work as perceived by a free market. And we have been free to spend our earnings as we choose, subject to taxes providing an incentive to limit our more damaging consumption (smoking, alcohol, petrol etc). I think it is a pretty great way to live, and economies flourish in the long run.

I know, I know, that’s not how a starving HIV-positive child in Africa sees it. But the starving child’s problems aren’t caused by capitalism, they are mostly caused by drought, war, corrupt leaders and not enough condoms.

Wipe the developed western world off the face of the earth, and the problem of extreme poverty would remain exactly as it is now. It would probably be worse, due to the lack of Red Nose Days and Blue Peter Appeals and water-well-drilling-machines. It just wouldn’t look like so much of a problem since there would be no rich fat westerners, not doing a thing to help, to compare them to.

So I’ll take you up on the idea of throwing in a few suggestions myself:

– Much like we have high and low rate income tax, bring in a tiered scale for mega-businesses. Tax the profits of large corporations proportionally more than small ones within a given sector. Couple this with a decrease in tax if a large proportion of a company’s costs are made up of employees wages. Put a ceiling on the level to which it is worthwhile a company growing to (preventing monopolies and other market problems), and provide an incentive to pay workers more. It wont reduce incentives to drive down costs through technological innovation. No end of complications I’m sure to implement that, but a workable principle I think.

– Increase international aid. Not just aid, investment too. It makes sense even if we are only thinking of ourselves. Provide joe public with the ability to invest in African economies more easily.

– Kick the pope in the nuts, over and over again, until he retracts the anti-contraception thing. Some areas just cant cope with that many people just yet.

– Increase duties on fuel and carbon dioxide production. Not to raise money, just to provide greater incentive to cut down. The world is getting messed up. Anyone moaning about how much the cost of their massive commute will go up can learn to ride a motorbike.

– (this is probably much, much too simplistic to be much use). Replace bankers bonuses with long term stocks and warrants in the bank.

– Back home in the UK, refuse to pay any type of unemployment benefits to anyone who owns a TV larger than 28inches. I’m mildly serious here.

– Sort out the EU fishing quota thing. Monumentally wasteful.

I’m sure those are massively flawed in one way or another that I wont understand, but it is an attempt to give positive, tangible suggestions rather than moaning aimlessly and offering nothing.

Bedtime.

Better at what? Better for whom?

Better for maximising quality of life. For the bulk of the world’s population.

I’m not saying that it is fair. Nor am I saying that every single person is better off in a capitalist world than they would be otherwise. I’m saying that in general, on the whole, I suspect it is the best thing anyone has suggested that is realistically implementable.

Seriously, throw me an alternative idea for how you think the world should work and I’ll have a go at explaining why I think regulated capitalism beats it.

The big sticking point is that if you want someone to put their assets at risk, you will have to reward them for it.

Do you still want to claim it is great at dragging people out of poverty? i would hate to see a bad system if this is good.

While horribly flawed, I’m not aware of any examples of a system that has worked better.

To bring a slightly more optimistic tone, I love this video:

We have a couple of these in the kitchen:
http://www.bonthronebikes.co.uk/251-473275

Had to cut them down so they didn’t hang so far off the wall, but does the job quite nicely:

Jolsa – An old fashioned high street broker may be a good place to try (somewhere like Swintons). Wont be much more expensive than what you would be able to get online, and a lot of insurers take more care over quotes rather than try to fit everyone into simple categories.

The fact that you have had this policy cancelled will make no difference at all, dont worry.

The fact the your house is in a new build area and therefore insurance companies have no data to judge you by may restrict your choices of insurer or make your premiums higher, but it shouldn’t be horrendous.

Some postcode areas are massive fraud hotspots. Either full of the kind of people who commit fraud on their own insurance, or lots of people who cause crashes for the insurance money. If your postcode is new then insurers may assume the worse when quoting. But the fact that your old insurer cancelled your cover should make no difference.

I found this site really good:
http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/charity-comparisons.php

Its uses World Health Organisation studies to evaluate how much good a charitable donation will actually do. Value is measured in Disability adjusted life years (DALYs).

So, say, giving someone an extra year of healthy life when they would otherwise die is worth one DALY, giving someone an extra year of sight when they would otherwise go blind is worth something like 0.4 DALYs.

I’m remarkably cynical of charities – I don’t get how people can donate to the RSPCA so that a guy can wear a uniform to re-house dogs while the same amount of money can add a load of healthy years to some poor guys life so he can continue to support his family.

So basically insurers are just misunderstood and the good guys. I’m sure I heard a bunch of people saying something similar not that long ago, who was it again?

Aah yes, the bankers! Yeah, OK, you got me.

The whole sob story about “just trying to make some money by providing a service in a very competitive free market” is indeed complete BS.

Were all the same, us financial services people.

What we really could do with though, is more people to complain bitterly and ungratefully about the state of the world while offering up no remotely worthwhile suggestions as to how it could be made better in their eyes.

I’ll be there. First non-road ride in 3 months. Just been pootling up and down the road on my mtb, everything still works. This is gonna be interesting…

Course condition update appreciated here too – still got the summer tyres on at the mo!

It depends on what part of the bike you consider to be “fixed”.

If you fix the position of the BB relative to the dropouts, headtube etc, then seat tube angle makes not a jot of difference – the change in the position of the top of the seat tube can be compensated for by moving the saddle/using a layback post.

However, if you fix the position of the top of the seat tube, and vary the seat tube angle, it will be the BB that moves, which certainly will affect the handling of the bike.

Unless you have an uppy-downy seat post that is.

I think that capitalism fits in quite well wth the natural order of things. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, predator/prey cycles. Thing is, there are downsides to this in that we get boom and bust, feast and famine, strongest and weakest (in terms of financial stength). I like the idea of being able to better your standard of living through hard work and creativity. But also as most people do, I don’t like the downsides. Like politics in general I don’t think the answer lies in choosing one extreme or the othere but blending the positives from all viewpoints.

Amen. I’ll go to sleep on that.

Stoner and DruidH took the words out of my mouth.

I think what you are trying to suggest is that the entire profits of a company should be shared between employees. But if this were to happen, there would be no incentive for people to invest in capital, and to take the risks that setting up a business requires. Development would totally stagnate.

Not much of an argument to say there isn’t any workable model,

Surely the fact that there is no better model is an excellent argument for the continuation of capitalism.

the US and the UK have just spent 50 years making sure that no other economy could compete with them.

…as is the fact that nobody has been able to compete with the capitalistic countries over the last 50 years.

That’s the beauty of capitalism and the danger, starve off other countries of resources buy resources from countries where they are less in demand and then sell them stuff from your economy that is stronger and has more money for research and development.

So spending money on research and development to create a better product is a bad thing? or is it the fact that we are giving developing countries to opportunity to buy technologically advanced products that you object to?

Erm, let me clarify that for you, the amount that they earn the company should determine thier wages is that clear enough

Its clear, but completely unworkable. How much does the lady who cleans my office toilets earn the company? How much should she be paid?

1) The people who are involved in it should share in the profits and benefits, for example the money that a company earns, each individual should be paid based on how much they earn the company. That way you have a motivated work force.

Erm… I’m fairly sure that even the most capitalistically evil corporations in the world pay their staff. They even pay more to those staff doing more difficult and demanding jobs.

If an employee comes up with an idea to make the company more efficient and profitable without detrimentally effecting the service, they should be paid a percentage of the profits gained from the procedures, practices or idea’s.

Congratulations, you have invented the concept of giving an employee a bonus for good work.

2) Those of us that buy products or services should be looking to only deal with companies that show us where the money is going, if companies invest the money they make in the lives of the people involved we should support them, if not we should simply deny them our custom.

A very reasonable thing to say. I actually agree completely. That’s still capitalism though.

3) We need to invest a percentage of our races resources into effective management of all of our races resources. We need to ensure that everything is done as efficiently as possible and that we get the most out of every endevour.

This cannot happen under normal capitalism,Slag off capitalism all you like, but please don’t deny that it provides enormous incentive to do things efficiently and maximise return from endeavour.

however something must be done, as our situation is growing more dire by the day. The climate is changing, we have no idea why

We are seeing more and more unsettled weather conditions, even here in the UK, what will it take for all of us to wake up Sorry, you’ve lost me.

Play me the worlds smallest violin…

What other time in history, any where they air is not foul and toxic,

The air isn’t toxic at all, you’re just trying to be poetic.

any where the majority of people you come across are not stressed out and miserable.

you need to find a new set of mates who appreciate life.

Any, where humanity has not become to depraved that it is raping the planet it lives on and puts money, wealth and power above being human!

Humans have always depended on the resources of the planet. With the booming population, we require more of these resources. This is not the fault of capitalism.

You argue that we should be happy with capitalism because it has provided all the technology we own and the advancement of our race, you argue that fighting amongst ourselves is the best way to get thing done, rather than working together

Bit of rivalry & competition between teams, corporations or nations is an excellent way to motivate people. It wasn’t the US and Russia working together that put man on the moon.

Can you prove that we would not have gotten this far without capitalism or that had it not been for the church, then the governments and now big business’s intereference with the development and evolution of our race, that we would not already have walked amongst the stars

Of course I can’t prove it. But I can point to other countries which tried systems other than capitalism and didn’t do so well.

Your arguments assume a great deal, althought they show intellect they also show that you have a limited capacity for logic and reason.

Ok, give me a good example of your superior capacity for logic and reason…

If capitalism worked we would be in a better possition as a species.

That’s neither logical nor reasonable

You are arguing that our current circumstances as a race is some how a good thing?

Yes. I for one cant think of a better time to be alive than the 21st century. As I said before, we have problems looming, like overpopulation and terrorists trying to get hold of nuclear weapons, but capitalism is not to blame for those.

Anyone that believes that technology is more important than humanity is a screen brain!

I agree. So what?

I’m still waiting to hear your suggestion of what you think would be a better alternative. In the video you linked to, even renowned academic David Harvey rightly pointed out some huge flaws, but still said he didn’t know what system could be better.

petrieboy – Thats cheeky! Not heard of that before. Was it the actual insurer who put you through to the personal injury lawyer, or your bank / the broker? (often claims are initially reported to a broker who will only report to the insurer every month or so).

Can see that a ploy like that would be profitable though – good commission to be made from referring injury claims.

The amusement I get from listening to individuals who’s intellects are intact, but their ability to apply logic and reason to any given subject, argument or problem due to suffering from delusional retardation, never ceases.

I also derive great amusement from feeling superior to others. But I do try to engage with them, ask them questions, and see if I can learn from their ideas, rather than dismiss them as delusional retards.

I don’t think it works and that all of the arguments for it are bollocks and can be shown, to be so!

I dont. I think that while it is not perfect, it is the best method we have of distributing limited goods and resources among the population.

Try to say something positive Kaesae. Tell us what you think the world should do as an alternative. Or answer my question in the other thread about what other place in the world, at any point in history, you would rather be living in compared to today’s capitalist system.

You keep saying that capitalism is bad yet I haven’t heard a single suggestion from you as to what would be better.

kaesae – Member
A lot of good arguments, here’s mine. If capitalism worked we wouldn’t be up sh1t creak as a species.

While people go on about this policy and that legislation, the way of life for the average person in this country sucks, which is of course why we have so much crime and so many deaths due to stress.

Ever heard the saying Rip Off Britain, banking, insurance, the judicial system, they are all fundamentally flawed. Collecting money and buying a load of sh1te with it, isn’t a logical course of action.

Interesting point of view. Can you tell me another place in the world, throughout any of human history, in which you would rather have lived? Capitalist, communist, dictatorial, whatever…

We have guaranteed medical care – not perfect, but better than ever before. We have social security that while not providing huge wealth will keep us alive if we cant find a job. Thanks to recent medical & scientific advances, we get to live twice as long as out great great great uncleses and auntses. The huge amounts we have to pay to insure our privately owned cars is one of the major things we find to worry ourselves about.

The massive population explosions in Africa & Asia are a cause for concern. Nuclear war is a cause for concern. I dont see how capitalism is bringing us closer to extinction.

I think we are doing alright in rip-off Britain thanks very much.

Surely it’s

Total claims cost divided by number of claims = Starting base rate

then actuarial derived factors to adjust the risk based on age, location, performance etc, then divide through by the TLR to get the premium? It’s not that difficult!

Yep, thats it in principle, but unfortunately it is quite difficult! We need separate models for different types of claims (eg. the value of a car does not affect the likely severity of a third party injury claim, but does affect the size of accidental damage claims). And we need to predict what trends will happen over time (eg. injury claim frequency is always growing, but how much?).

Then we are at the mercy of quirks in our past data. Maybe all of the 26 year old drivers we have insured in the past have just been plain lucky, and we have massively underestimated the risk they pose.

petrieboy – Member
A few years ago I had a policy on an old VW polo I bought to use until my new car was delivered. After one month I called them to change my car to a ferrari 612 scaglietti and add my younger brother (motor trade worker with provisional license) to the policy. They could no longer provide me with cover so refunded full premium minus 30 days pro rata cover already used. No penalty to pay. Just a thought.

Now that’s ingenuity.

From the perspective of a guy who works in the pricing department of a motor insurer:

The UK motor insurance market, as a whole, hasn’t had a profitable year since the 1990s. This is for 2 main reasons:

– It is pretty darn close to what economists would call a “perfect market”. The product is pretty similar across all suppliers, and price comparison sites mean that the buyer can instantly compare prices across the whole market. Thus, if an insurer wants to sell any insurance, they have got to be among the cheapest.

The thing about insurance is that unlike anything else in the world (that I can think of), the supplier does not know what the product will cost them before they sell it. So they have to guess, then add a margin to make profit. Their guess might be too high, or might be too low. But on a price comparison site, the customer buys the cheapest of, say, 20 independent guesses, and that guess will probably have underestimated the risk. Its called the winner’s curse.

The other reason is that while the number of crashes has gone down, the safety of cars has improved and seatbelts are being worn more often, the number of people claiming from insurance companies for personal injuries has shot up.

Why? Because of no-win-no-fee personal injury claims becoming an opportunistic, consumer driven industry. Look here if you need the evidence: http://comparecompensationclaims.com/

Whiplash has no verifiable symptoms, so anyone who has had a slight knock can claim. A car park bump that would have cost an insurer £100 a few years ago often now involves every person involved claiming a few grand for soft tissue injuries.

And don’t get me started on the fraud cases we are seeing during the recession.

Insurance premiums have got out of hand, but don’t blame the insurers – they are losing shedloads of money too. I think that reform of compensation laws is the answer.

You can take a good trip down the length of Java – start in Jakarta and finish in Bali. Mt Bromo is supposed to be amazing but was ruined by weather when I was there. Borobodur is pretty neat too.

If you want to escape the crowds, go for a walk into Ijen crater (you can arrange guides in Yogjakarta). Amazing scenery, pretty sulphurous lake, and bizarre medievially industrial mines in the bottom by the lake to extract liquid sulphur. Incredibly friendly guys work all day long carrying huge yellow lumps out of the crater in order to earn some pitiful wage. Amazing people. Incredible place to visit and a highlight of South East Asia for me.

Its not silly-bonkers bright, but the alpkit one gives a whole lotta brightness for not much wonga:

http://www.alpkit.com/shop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16345&category_id=253

oh, ok, you mean one that doesn’t wear out. Fairy nuff.

I’d love to know why anyone needs a granny ring to be strong – how in the world would you break one even if it wasn’t strong??? (so long as it is strong enough to pull the chain along a bit)

It could be very useful if used responsibly. For example, if you are an itinerant worker, builder’s mate say, and you have just started a job and need say boots or tools, but payday’s not til next week.

You’re right – there are occasions where it is a very useful service and can do a lot of good. However (the downside of the free market distribution approach) is that companies try to sell these loans to people who would be much better off without them, and who should use some discipline instead.

epicyclo – Member

Poverty Tax comes to mind.

That’s ridiculous – nobody is forced to take out these loans, and they are provided via a competitive free market.

Remember these are short term loans to help people spend too much money in the short term and screw themselves over for the next month – not the important types that allow the poor to get long term accommodation or something like that.

What do you suggest? That the government should subsidise the entire country in spending its next paycheck before it has earned it?

The APR may look extortionate, but remember that these are very short term, low value loans, with a high default rate.

For example 2278% APR could mean borrowing £200, and paying back £212.53 a week later – probably a typicalish scenario for a place like QuidQuick or Wonga which is designed to bail someone out until their next paycheck. Doesn’t sound so bad when you look at it in context.

Given how often these loans must be defaulted on and the faff they must sometimes go through to get the money back, I don’t think it is an unreasonable rate.

The whole concept of lending money to those who are just on the verge of balancing their books and standing up on their own two feet in the first place is questionable, but I don’t think the APRs they charge are extortionate at all.

My experience is that their product is outstanding, but customer service is utterly shocking.

When we signed up I booked a day for the engineer to come over, taking the day off work to be in. They called the day before to confirm they would be over, and then never came. It turned out that due to some roadworks down the street, they would be unable to complete the work, and they had known about this for at least a week and mumbled an apology about how it was all very regrettable that I had taken a day off work completely pointlessly.

3 weeks later (the next available slot) they installed our service, but spent the next 3 months billing us about twice what the contract said (they provided and billed a bigger package than we ordered). Spent hours on the phone to some bint who seemed to take pleasure in interrupting me in order to ask me not to interrupt her, and never let me finish a question before providing a sarcastic answer (later kicked myself for not complaining to her supervisor immediately, no way she would have kept her job if someone had heard the recording of that call).

However, since then, we have had 2 years of extremely fast & reliable internet, good TV channels and free phone calls, for a much lower price than anyone else can offer.

Yes, they are hell to deal with but in my experience it has been worth it.

A drunk friend and 12 bottles of wine. We got a smile from a policeman.

p.s. office 2007 is many many times better and takes 5 minutes to get used to, not tried 2010 yet.

– Totally disagree. Excel 2007 removed a whole lot of functionality and the stupid “ribbon” monstrosity has me tearing my hair out on a regular basis. Huge price to pay for some pretty conditional formatting and a sumifs function (the only improvements I am aware of).

What is the deal with all the awesome adverts? There are some real quality commercials appearing that are better than the actual program!

I got another:

28 days later soundtrack. So very spooky.

Jimmy Eat World – Disintegration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWM73kU59gM

To be enjoyed in a dark room, very loudly.

I’m with Cougar on this one, put it in the same category as homeopathy. If the things really work, then why has nobody won a Nobel prize?

I’m serious. If there was anything in it, it would turn everything we know about physics on its head and would be the greatest advancement since the work of Marie Curie, if not greater.

The fact that the manufactures stayed away from any rigorous testing and went down the road of slapping it onto a rubber bracelet and selling them to gullible fools for $30 on the internet tells me all I want to know.

Ask yourself if you really need a cover – the screen is already a matte finish, so scratches wont stick out like on a phone screen. And half of the attraction with a Kindle is the fact that it is slim and light.

Personally I think its nuts to spend 1/3 of the value of the kindle on something that makes it fatter and heavier, but might protect the screen…

druidh – Member

Woody – Member
Is it just me, or does CharlieMungus sound awfully like a certain Mr SFB ?

Just as bloody irritating if it's not him.

I thought it was just TJ with two logons

That would be great – TJ and CharlieMungus is fact a Schizophrenic, in an attempt to have the world's most pointless argument with oneself.

I feel better for having found a rational explanation.

Torminalis – Member
In my mind it is quite simple. The Pope:

Refutes the theory of evolution
Refuses to allow women into the priesthood (wonder what he makes of the Queen!)
Is against abortion for rape victims
Is against contraception even for disease prevention
Is infallible (!?!?!???!?!)

You can get all tied up for days making sophisticated arguments back and forth on how many lives the church has saved or ended but anyone who considers this man (or his church) to be a moral authority is a f*cking idiot.

You forgot to mention that he considers gay people to be morally disordered and thinks they should burn in hell.

Aside from that, you hit the nail square on the head :-)