Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Game_Over

New Members
  • Posts

    7,861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Game_Over

  1. Anyway - been thinking more about this and have come up with some facts. Fact 1 - for most of our existence humans have lived at a subsistence level, barely clinging to existence. Fact 2 - All through human history, there have been some humans who have had ideas that have enabled them to gain a competitive edge. Fact 3 - Throughout most of history, these humans have only had the same access to resources as all other humans, so their impact on the overall wealth created by humanity was minimal. Fact 4 - Capitalism is a system of organisation arrived at after many hundreds of years of experimentation whereby society channels capital to these wealth creating individuals which has enabled them to vastly increase the overall wealth and well being of the whole of humanity. Fact 5 - Socialism is a system of organisation whereby capital is taken away from wealth creating individuals and distributed across the whole of society which inevitably results in the destruction of that wealth. Anyone who disagrees with this analysis would have to explain why humans lived the same way for hundreds of thousands of years but then suddenly had an explosion of wealth creation. The Greeks and Romans both had the capacity to have an industrial revolution, so why didn't they? It could be that both had slavery and that capitalism is the first system that really gave people freedom, another reason why Socialism fails because essentially it is no different from Serfdom. Just random thoughts.
  2. Humans have always paid rent with or without a state rent is the energy humans have to expend in order to defend their land without land humans cannot survive Monkeys do the same, as do most other living creatures even ant colonies fight each other.
  3. The responses don't have much to do with the article - they are the same arguments that have been repeated over and over by the same people ever since I started posting here. I don't know what the answer is, because no one ever really discusses any realistic or practical way forward, instead people just keep proposing solutions that have failed over and over again. Even the Labour Party abandoned most of these ideas years ago - of course in opposition they see their role as opposing everything the Government proposes - but in Government they will persue the exact same policies. I don't know what the answer is - but please try and come up with something better than a 100+ years old failed ideology.
  4. He's also a complete loony which might explain why his views appear to be so popular on this site
  5. On an island of starving people what would be worth the most A ton of Dollars A ton of Gold A ton of Grain ?????
  6. Automation results in everything than can be produced by automation getting cheaper and everything that cannot getting more expensive the ultimate limiting factors for humanity will be the cost of food, water and fuel which are largely determined by the size of the human population of the planet So automation is not the problem, therefore robots consuming items produced by automation is not a solution.
  7. Tell them not to worry because they have a lifetime of labour to sell. The people who always lose out in these situations are those who have have worked all their lives and now live on savings or a pension. Because when the inevitable happens, they will lose everything unfortunately. Ironically, when the Sh1t really does hit the fan the people with numerous kids are going to be the people who don't starve or freeze to death in their old age.
  8. Fortunately we will soon have thousands of wind turbines pumping out electricity, that should solve all our problems cos the wind is free. Or if we don't, runaway Global Warming will mean the end of winter as we know it. So either way the future is bright in an eco-friendly Britain. Apparently...........................................
  9. As an example, If someone sells shares in a shoe company and uses the money to build a house that they then rent out this is clearly wealth creation, because they have provided someone with a home. Previously they were providing people with shoes. Wealth is all the things we need to survive, including shoes and housing.
  10. It's going to be a Mexican stand off between us and Germany probably. Both now realise the game is up but neither wants the blame for bringing the whole rotten edifice crashing down hence Germany trying to paint us into a corner in order to get themselves off the hook Either way the EU as we know it is doomed IMO
  11. Trying to stop posting here because it's a complete waste of time, however, the responses to this thread really take the biscuit. Did the 20th Century not happen? did I just imagine it ? Capitalism has delivered untold wealth but the ruling elite have managed to corner most of that wealth. The answer is not to destroy wealth creation, the answer is to stop the unproductive. parasitic, political classes stealing all the wealth created. How we achieve this is clearly problematic but the idea that a failed 19th Century ideology is the answer to the challenges of the 21st Century is absolutely ludicrous. CAPITALISM delivers unprecedented wealth, SOCIALISM destroys wealth. SOCIALISM is not the answer and it's so bloody depressing that the new generations haven't got the wit or imagination to at least try suggesting something that might just stand a cat in Hell's chance of working. Please feel free to ignore this post, as none of the likely replies will add anything whatsoever to the debate.
  12. The mystery deepens but it really is none of my business. I would just like to be able to post here every so often without the mind games. And I really can't understand why some people's opinions are considered so beyond the pale. I am just an ordinary person with a family etc I am not posting from a cell in Broadmoor. Anyway I have pushed my luck today I think, perhaps one day all mysteries will be solved and we will discover the truth, whatever it may be.
  13. Seen it all before, done it myself before - but stopped all that years ago multiple posts with exact same date stamps via proxy servers etc, etc, etc I really actually found you an interesting person and would have enjoyed debating with you but it is clear that there are things you are not yet prepared to face. Not my fault - or my problem but I would help if I could but clearly I can't. But I really do wish you luck and I genuinely mean that.
  14. TBH Injin I have got pretty tired with this now. It is clear you don't want me posting on this site and if the mods are prepared to let you do what you do then its not a battle I could ever win not that I ever wanted a fight. Well it's your site and it is obviously extremely important to you that no one challenges your position here by questioning your belief system so I admit defeat. You Win.
  15. Which one of your personae would you like me to 'debate' with Dr Jekyl or Mr Hyde ?
  16. listen Injin. I am now ending this discussion because it is not getting me anywhere and it is certainly not helping you come to terms with whatever it is drives your belief system I really do wish you luck in your quest for the truth but it is clear that there is absolutely nothing I personally can do to help you in your quest
  17. because capitalism provided untold wealth, which the ruling elite then tried to monopolise. Socialism was a reaction to this, but the cure ended up being ten times worse than the disease. We need a new answer - not an old failed and discredited ideology. But seeing capitalism as the problem, because it provides the wealth that others then monopolise is simply bonkers. The logical answer to that argument would be that we should all go back to living on the verge of starvation so that no one feels poor because everyone would be poor which, come to think of it is pretty much how Socialism operates.
  18. And how do you propose overthrowing the state without creating another state in the process. It seems to me that this is why every attempt to overthrow the state inevitably fails. You are also ignoring the fact that 99.9% of humans that have ever lived CHOOSE to live in a state of some description. The occasional person wanders off into the wilderness and clings to existence for a few years but they inevitably end up dying alone and terrified. IMO you have chosen a very, very hard path to walk.
  19. That is only possible if you live alone on a mountain top and you would then be at the mercy of nature. Humans choose to live in groups for mutual comfort, security and prosperity. All such groups are a de facto state because anyone who chooses to ignore the rules in such groups or tries to challenge the power structure is ultimately ejected and more often than not perishes as a result. And the entire history of humanity is the history of such small groups joining together in order to dominate smaller groupings. You could argue that its unfair that the tide comes in everyday, my reply would be it's neither fair or unfair - its just an inevitable natural occurrence. This is how we often end up 'falling out' because you view what I see as an inevitable natural state as me holding an opinion which you view as abhorrent. Shooting the messenger won't change anything, least of all reality.
  20. Well that's a first. But it isn't Statism that's the problem it's the size of the state and what it is doing.
  21. In that case, to what do you ascribe the vast increase in Wealth produced by humanity over the last few hundred years given that humanity barely clung to existence for the previous few hundred thousand? And don't say scientific progress, because the ancient Greeks and Romans had scientists just as good as those we have now.
  22. I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before. When I have a splitting headache I take paracetamol, but if I took the whole bottle it would kill me. There has always and will always be a state of some description the argument is, how large should the state be and what should it be doing. I even support income redistribution by the state via taxation but there is a clear law of diminishing returns with taxation that was passed years ago. We need Capitalism to generate real wealth and the best way to reduce inequality would be if the state didn't steal 90+% of ordinary peoples income in order to give it to others who are either rich already or simply don't deserve it. Capitalism didn't fail in the West, it was bled to death by the Big State Social Welfare Model that ended up with governments taking a bigger slice of the economy than they did in East Germany before the fall of the USSR
  23. I don't have a Utopian view of anything, as life itself is as far from Utopia as you could possibly get. If Capitalism was allowed to self correct, the consequences would be pretty horrible for many, many people - as in the Great Depression but the alternatives are far, far worse. When Socialism failed in China, 60 million people starved to death during the Great Depression in the US people suffered but recorded death rates were no higher than prior to the depression or after. Capitalism is far from perfect, but life in general is hard and Capitalism is the best we have come up with or are ever likely to, given that Socialism in all its forms was tested to destruction in the 20th Century and brought nothing but economic failure, death camps, secret police and starvation.
  24. No it didn't. The 1930's were a product of the political and social movements that led to the first world war and subsequently the second. We could now be looking at the 3rd go, engineered by the same people for the same reasons. I suppose you could blame capitalism indirectly if you blame it for the huge surplus of unemployed youth in the World but if the wealth generated by capitalism was shared out a bit more fairly, rather than being stolen by the state we probably wouldn't need a massive cull every few decades.
×
×
  • 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.