Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts 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. It is the monopolisation of the location which is where the primary rent seeking is occurring, not in the house building. Secondarily, you have various parasites in the financial industry, rent seeking due to forced/fiat currency being pushed on everyone.

    Where ever there is a state enforced monopolies/regulations, there are sure to be rent seekers not far away.

    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. In what way? Probably a millionaire, worked on Wall Street, invented certain financial exchange software (Keiser is the creator, co-founder, and former CEO of HSX Holdings/Hollywood Stock Exchange, later sold to Cantor Fitzgerald. Alongside Michael R. Burns, he co-created the Hollywood Stock Exchange, which allows traders to exchange virtual securities, such as "MovieStocks" and "StarBonds," with convertible virtual currency, the "Hollywood Dollar."), broadcaster etc etc.


    See the post above by Sledgehead


  4. Please explain in what way?

    Everyone has simply posted that the original article is a load of garbage and a propaganda piece. Which it is. They've rightly torn large holes in the story it tries to portray. It's not even hard to prove it's a load of garbage.

    HMRC itself has said that some £16-£18bn was tax shifted to the prior year to avoid the 50% tax. ONS has also said that some £6.5bn has been shifted into the following year where it will attract the 45% tax rate.


    So how does people rightly pointing out that the telegraph is posting dailymail-esque rubbish "take the biscuit"?

    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.


  5. There are indeed- but not inside the current system- which is the point I am making. What I am attacking is the often repeated idea that automation is a source of value in economic terms- and that the more we automate the more economic value is created.

    Value to who- the person buying them or the person selling them?

    My question is-does automation create or destroy economic value? I would argue that it destroys economic value because such value can only arise in a context where a human need or desire is met- and replacing human workers with machines eliminates the income that allows human needs or desires to be met.

    So the more we automate humans out of the process the less economic value is created.

    I'm not saying there are not solutions to this reality- just that in the current system it's inaccurate to claim that automation increases economic value in the economy.

    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.


  6. Who do we keep borrowing from or to put it another way who is it that happily keeps buying our Government Debt ?

    My kids asked me for a definitive answer . Being teenagers even they can see that the bank of England printing money like confetti cannot go on ad infinitum.

    What should I tell them as they are at that age when some of the alternative theories (Illuminati, lizards etc) seem to make more sense than the 'real' situation.

    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.


  7. Visited my elderly parents in Oct and the were swaddled up in blankets in the middle of the day with the heating off. My mother said 'Welcome to Britain in 2012'. She does charity work for a church group and does home visits for asylum seekers. She loves it as she says their houses are always so warm (they get their heating bills paid for them as they are not allowed to work). My dad worked all his life, never knew him being on the dole. His big treat is the hour in the morning and hour in the evening when they put the heating on.

    What a sh1th0le Britain has become.

    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.



  8. I don't know all the rules, but it's clear that rentierism is not wealth creation and should be taxed differently. The current system encourages rentierism.

    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.


  9. Good point. The traditional "French way" may be incompatible with EU rules, and aggravated by their membership of the Euro - can't print no more either! :lol:

    Quite funny if France were to get out of the EU before Britain. :D

    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


  10. 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.


  11. ask the mods.

    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.


  12. not debate...just searching out capitalism in the world.

    feel free to check with the mods on my multiple personae status.

    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.


  13. Not if you carry on believing in nonsense, no.

    Feel free to believe in reality any time you like.

    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.


  14. I don't know - how do you propose to stop rape without raping someone in the process?

    What on earth are you talking about? All I have to do is not threaten or injure others. It's a piece of piss.

    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


  15. A very good point, though I made it to GO before in a reverse way - that if socialism is the problem then how come we all had ****** all before anyone thought socialism up?

    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.


  16. No, statism is the problem 0- that is your insane fantasy that the state can be limited or controlled in some way - be made to just sit in a corner like a good dog.

    Once you have a state of any sizem, it expands until it destroys the society it infests. You can either accept the truth of this or be wrong.


    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.


  17. Freedom from the state.


    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.


  18. No, no, no. You see, Socialism is an ideology that goes wrong irrespective of whether it's "true" socialism or not (although it never is). Capitalism is never "true" capitalism either, but if it were...

    Why do other people's ideologies fail? Because the ideology is wrong. Why do your ideologies fail? Because the implementation of the ideology was wrong. See?

    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.


  19. Problem being that those things aren't inherent to socialism at all.

    Facists produce those things as well.

    That they are all are forms and results of statism.Or, the theory that you can force people to be better than they really are. Early socialist thought was defiantly anti state, fwiw. Then ofc, the statists co opted it as they always do. They even have taken on board free market slogans and ideas. Clever people, shame what they are doing can't work.

    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


  20. You are right and Game Over is wrong. Game Over has a utopian vision of true capitalism. He is a true believer. We find ourselves in a world so predicated on happen stance that in a real sense it lacks structure. In this context his faith is touching.

    Marx was wrong and his opponents were wrong. The problem with setting the question up as Marx vs Marx's opponents is that it ignores the almost inevitable possibility (given the detail we find in the history of human thought all the way back to the flat Earth and curing fevers by bleeding people to death) that both parties are wrong.

    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.


  21. Capitalism almost failed and ended in the 1930's. But reforms were made so that the marketplace, aka the masses could get cash in their hands again. And capitalism soared higher than before with all the new technologies of the day.

    All the advanced capitalist countries put in place the welfare state in that era. One writer called it the omega point.

    In that period it took old age pensions, employment insurance, 40 hour work week, maternity leave, statuatory holidays, tipping the scales to the unions, welfare spending, public housing, food stamps and national health care in most nations.

    It seemed to the right wing writers of the day unlikely that the state would be able to afford all of those new spending programs, considering the budget was already unbalanced and getting worse. However they failed to see that the economy is so interlinked. If everyone where you live starts making money, its a lot easier for you to make money (and pay net taxes).

    I could be wrong but I get the feeling we are nearing the next omega point. The point where capitalism breaks down from its own success in production.

    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.