Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. They never had those savings in the first place. They should have been paid in tax to prevent us running up the debt. Now they are being taxed though inflation to help us pay it down.

    A couple of years is overdoing it a bit. You don't have to be too old to remember inflation running a lot higher than it is now.

    Many of these people worked from age 14 and lived very frugally for decades in order to pay into pensions and save for their retirement.

    Had they pissed everything up the wall we wouldn't be any better off

    in fact we would be even worse off.

    And once the state has stolen everything they have, the state will then have to borrow even more to support these people

    unless the plan is to leave them to starve or freeze to death.

    :blink:

  2. And when you've read the above - you can head on over to the "N I R P" thread:

    http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=96852&st=0

    and perhaps after that the 'NIRP Warning' thread.

    Are you still banging on about Deflation?

    We will never, ever, ever get deflation in the UK

    they will keep printing until they lose control of inflation

    then they will have to hike interest rates.

    At the moment everyone is far deeper in the crap than we are, so they are getting away with it.

    The fact remains, however, that what they are getting away with is theft on a grand scale.

    :blink:

  3. Exactly. And if you didn't pay that tax via inflation then you would pay it some other way.

    There are a few good things about inflation, namely the tax is proportional to how much cash/savings you have, that it is paid by any holder of the currency or debts due in the currency. This means that a burden that would be shouldered solely by UK nationals is shared amongst all world holders of the currency. The tax is also easily avoidable. You don't have to hold much in currency if you don't want to and can therefore avoid the inflation tax if you wish. Surely if you dislike inflation you choose not to pay the tax by piling into assets.

    People who are now too old to sell their Labour have to rely on savings in order to survive.

    When inflation rips, these are the people who suffer.

    It must be pretty hard to see a lifetime of hard work destroyed in a couple of years.

    :blink:

  4. It is for the 'open loop' thinkers. No concept of feedback, you see.

    Sorry, wasn't having a go at you.

    I just thought you were being over generous suggesting that the concept was difficult for people to understand.

    TBH I don't think the problem is lack of intelligence, it's just the same old story

    people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence.

    IMO we have clearly reached the point where any increase in any form of taxation anywhere in the economy will result in falling revenues either directly or indirectly.

    Take the Green taxes on fuel bills which are hard to avoid - people will just have less money to spend on non essential items, therefore, less VAT will be raised and also people in retail could lose their jobs and end up claiming benefit.

    There is only one way out of the mess we are in, but it will be extremely painful for those who work for and live off the state I'm afraid.

    :blink:

  5. You mean they look for cold hard data that might back up the propaganda article and can find sweet FA? They then as i did look for data that disproves it and find HMRC data that quite readily does so, so rightly calls the article what it is - a load of garbage? Is that what a pedant is? Funny I thought what I did was seek the truth.....

    How about looking at 100 years of history.

    And it is hardly counter intuitive - if you steal everything people make they end up only making what they personally need to survive.

    Societies that use Socialism to redistribute wealth in order to remove inequality always achieve their goal

    its just that they achieve equality by making everyone poor.

    :blink:

  6. Thanks that has helped my understanding. So what about QE in all this? Is that the government promising to make good on itself? If so does it believe itself? Why should it stop believing itself if it gets all the benefit. I mean in the case of QE surely as long as it believes it will be there, so why should it stop believing in itself?

    QE just writes down debt at the expense of savings

    Obviously you cannot print actual 'wealth' therefore printing just transfers wealth from those with savings to those in debt

    As the Government is in loads of debt, this is a good thing for them but a bad thing for savers and pension funds.

    Funnily enough I just came across a quote by Keynes about this very issue.

    :blink:

  7. Just happened upon this quote

    "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.... The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920)

    Anyway thought the quote was interesting given what is happening now.

    :blink:

  8. If capitalism is a very resent invention. Can you tell me when it was invented and by who and in which country it first took off?

    Not sure anyone could give you a definitive answer to that question TBH

    Coins are thousands of years old, but I would say capitalism did not really start up until the invention of fractional reserve banking which was started by Goldsmiths I believe. I understand that Jews were the originators in Europe as Christians were not allowed to lend money and charge interest. This is why Goldman Sachs are so hated on this forum.

    Greece and Rome never had an industrial revolution, probably because they had slaves

    and the industrial revolution which followed on from the agricultural revolution was probably caused by the shortage of labour following the Black Death.

    In the past I have had people here insisting that the State is only a few hundred years old, so this discussion could also run and run.

    :)

  9. I think people are confusing statism and states with sovereignty which is understandable .

    Mankind has been proven over time to act somewhere between making the ultimate self sacrifice ( dying for ones family, country , or even beliefs) at one end and acting like a selfish ******* evil **** at the other.

    The range is present in all humans but it reaches further in some than in others. The problem is ( and this is as a result of Darwinist 'survival of the fittest and natural section issues) is that generally in the short term (although long enough for permanent damage ) selfishness tends to be rewarded with better chances of survival .

    Mankind had sought all firms of sovereignty to try and defy and temper this in order to bring lasting benefits to a greater number . Religion and other superstitions ( behave or you will go to hell) , appeals to better nature etc have all been tried .

    Largely this fails unless a sovereign is appointed to enforce this because some people don't buy in and use the belief system to their advantage .

    It can be a king , a church , an idea but people will generally require a sovereign to regulate themselves and provide common laws.

    Most people simply argue what form is best . Some argue that none is required at all . It's an act of faith on both sides and I choose that a sovereign is best , that it will never be perfect and generally I think life under a western style capitalist democratic system is better than other alternatives whether they be tried or not.

    I have no proof that I am right and neither does anyone else. I also couldn't really give a shit what most people thought because I'd defend my beliefs if I had to .

    Perhaps the dilema is that humans within a group will increase their chances of survival by co-operation within the group

    but the group as a whole increases its chances of survival by out competing other groups for scarce resources.

    Therefore humans are capable of co-operation at one level and entirely destructive behaviour at another.

    :blink:

  10. How much energy have the majority land owners in the UK expended? Not very much at all, as the state does it for them.

    Besides, just because you can 'expend energy to defend <stuff>', it doesn't mean it is right. You could argue for using energy to defend 'your' slaves too, but direct slavery has largely been rejected by civilised society.

    Statism is just slavery, hidden under a posh suit. It's time it was rejected too.

    You have only got to look at what has happened in every country where the land has been stolen from those who previously owned it

    and although slavery is clearly undesirable and inefficient, at the end of the day, most people would rather be slaves than starve to death.

    We would really have to have an extremely long discussion about the origins of Feudalism in order to explain why it came about and then lasted for thousands of years.

    :)

  11. I'm glad you at least think they're reasoned, even if we don't agree! ;)

    I don't have all the answers, but I don't believe statism (of any flavour) is the peak of what civilised society can achieve.

    None of us has the answer.

    Feudalism lasted thousands of years

    and it will probably be hundreds of years at least before the whole of humanity

    finally comes up with some sort of long term, stable alternative.

    IMO some form of state is inevitable and Capitalism will never be abandoned because it was the force that finally usurped Feudalism.

    The ultimate solution will include Capitalism, Democracy and some level of Welfare State

    but Socialism is no different to Feudalism and will therefore not be part of the answer IMO.

    :)

  12. Statism is a form of slavery, yet you seem pretty happy with that.

    Not sure why my position causes so much anger and confusion TBH.

    History shows that some form of state is inevitable

    so whether I think this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant.

    Given that some form of state is inevitable, the argument is then what form should this state take?

    At the end of the day existence itself a form of slavery

    because if you don't get up every morning and fight for food and water you will perish

    and human groupings which inevitably lead to states are just a logical consequence of this fact of nature.

    :)

  13. So landlordism and rent seeking are socialist activities?

    Well as far as I remember when we had millions of council houses, people were required to pay rent

    although Labour councils didn't bother collecting it in order to buy votes

    hence Council Tax.

    In Socialist states, where everything is owned by the state, then surely the State itself becomes the Landowner

    so Socialism is no different to feudalism. Were ordinary people in the USSR any better off than they had been before Serfdom was abolished?

    I own my own house, therefore I do not pay rent to anyone,

    however, I have to pay council tax so even in our society the state is effectively my landlord.

    :)

  14. You idiot, opinions are not facts.

    Or am I the idiot for debating with a troll? Better stop...

    Both left and right are required or else either path leads back to feudalism.

    I'm probably right of centre not some pinko apologist but can't stand ignorant dogmatic anti-left American style tripe.

    You are honoured to be the first ever poster to go on ignore for me, I honestly don't think there's any chance of me missing out on some great revelation.

    What happened to your promise to post less?

    I fell off the wagon.

    And I honestly would like to know which of the facts I posted was an opinion

    as far as I can see all the responses have been entirely ad hominem

    no one has even attempted to actually address or refute the points I made.

    This is why I said earlier it is a waste of time posting

    Traktion is about the only person who actually bothers to think about and respond with a reasoned counter argument

    :blink:

  15. Everyone already knows this.

    The point is the amount of rent paid and by whom. The state facilitates rent extraction that otherwise would not be possible, something that you have acknowledged consistently with your rants against the state.

    You want the state to do the thing that you personally think are beneficial. Unfortunately so does everyone else. Everyone clearly can't have what they want and yet you are still a statist. This seems somewhat utopian.

    Sorry, but can't really keep up with all these posts - I had to go out and pick up my daughter from work.

    Lots of interesting questions though.

    States have existed for thousands of years and for most of that time the dominant force was feudalism.

    Then Capitalism evolved and the people in charge realised that if people were given freedom the wealth they generated would far exceed what they produced when they were essentially slaves.

    My position on the state has been entirely consistent, I believe some form of state is inevitable so what we are trying to find is the smallest, least intrusive state that is possible, as I believe this will result in people having the most freedom.

    My views on Socialism are derived entirely from studying what actually happened in the 20th Century

    which seems a reasonable basis on which to form an opinion.

    :)

  16. He's certainly fluid enough, china is getting stronger by the year because it's capitalistic -

    http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=181441&view=findpost&p=909104555

    but it's also apparently socialist-

    http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=177591&view=findpost&p=909015620

    China is actually trying something unique.

    It abandoned the economic aspects of socialism when 60 million people starved during the 'Great Leap Forward', but it retained the one party state, secret police, labour camp aspects.

    So what it has become is a strange hybrid - one party Capitalism.

    The problem is, Capitalism requires giving people freedom and once this genie is let out of the bottle, it is pretty hard to control.

    China is heading for tremendous internal strife at some point in the next few decades IMO.

    :)

  17. There you go, you see you CAN do it.

    That's an opinion, expressed as an opinion and not as a "fact".

    I don't want to debate the opinion with you, you are entitled to it. What you are not entitled to do unchallenged is say that it's a fact.

    IMO (see what I did there?) your political philosophy comes over as having been cribbed from some quasi-religious simplistic American right-wing outfit, portraying all that is left of centre as evil and all that is right of centre as good, with no recognition of the fact that without some of the success the left had in the past you probably wouldn't even have enough education to write the post and would have been cleaning chimneys aged 5.

    All of this in a thread where I posted simply to agree with the other posters debunking the original article.

    The things I listed as facts are facts.

    Capitalism channels money to wealth creators - that's why it's called Capitalism

    Socialism takes capital away from people who possess it and gives it to people who don't.

    I understand why people are unhappy with the facts, because they tend to spoil the party.

    No doubt food production figures have risen every year in North Korea, but the fact is, everyone is starving.

    :blink:

  18. Given that you define anything you don't personally like as socialism or 'the left' and don't regard anything in the past few decades as capitalism, I'd say you're on a hiding to nothing.

    I don't like death camps, secret police and slavery if that's what you mean

    and neither did the millions of people who risked death in the 20th Century attempting to escape from Socialist utopias

    to the evil capitalist west.

    And at the end of the day if Socialism worked, I would be all for it

    and so would everybody else.

    :)

  19. Why do you keep waffling about socialism?

    It, like capitalism, has never really been tried, human nature doesn't allow for it, we're not hive insects.

    Has anyone put forward socialism as an answer? I don't think so.

    All people have done is point out the totally misleading nature of the article, purporting to show how the 50p tax rate decreased the tax take but in fact showing nothing of the kind.

    As for your "Facts", they are mostly not facts at all but opinions.

    Which fact do you disagree with?

    Capitalism has been tried and that's why we now have jet airliners, computers etc, etc and produce vast amounts of food, energy and raw materials.

    This never happened before, why?

    And clearly capitalism concentrates capital in the hands of wealth creating individuals

    and as far as I understand it, the whole point of Socialism is to remove capital from people who have amassed it and give it to people who have failed to amass it.

    If you had 10k to invest would you lend it to Bill Gates or a tramp?

    The whole point of many posts on this thread is the idea that people with wealth have stolen it from the poor and that if the poor steal it back everyone will be rich.

    This isn't how Capitalism works, or what has actually happened throughout history.

    :blink:

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.