Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Game_Over

  1. Excessive power of Capital with respect to Labour as Labour went east, wage repression in the west with western demand maintained and brought forward through the action of massive credit expansion, giving more power to holders of Capital.

    Bugger all to do with the welfare state. Just true Capitalism in action. Ask Marx.

    No, because true capitalism is entirely self correcting

    firms can only get away with paying poverty wages because the state makes up the difference.

    And its entirely meaningless going back to the industrial revolution and claim that people lived in poverty because people were extremely poor and had extremely hard lives before capitalism transformed the World.

    What you have to look at is where we are now, thanks to capitalism.

    The poorest person in a capitalist society can now have the same life expectancy as the ruling elite in previous centuries

    provided they don't choose to eat, drink or smoke themselves to death.


  2. III.70 Great Britain shall suffer floods and war.

    La Grande Bretagne comprise l'Angleterre

    Viendra par eaux si fort inondre

    La ligue neufue d'Ausonne fera guerre

    Que contre eux il se viendront bander

    NOTE: Grande Bretagne: Great Britain; Angleterre: England; eaux: water; inonde: flooded; ligue: league; neufue: new; Ausonne: Italy; guerre: war; il: he; se: himself; bander: to bandage, to dress wound.

    Great Britain including England

    By sea shall suffer great floods

    The new league including Italy shall raise war against her

    Italy herself shall dress all her wounds

    So Nstrildamos says we will have floods, and be at war, and be at odds with the EU...all are here today....the end of the World is next month.

    Are you trying to start some sort of demarcation dispute withe Erranta?


  3. B0llux.

    I bought a bunch of Tshirts at sportsdirect y'day.

    £2.50 each.


    That's capitalism for you.

    At the other end of the scale the state takes 90%+ of your income in taxation, so it's a good job capitalism can provide you with a 2.50 Tshirt, otherwise you wouldn't be able to afford to clothe yourself.

    Income tax


    compulsory pension contributions (coming soon)

    Council Tax


    Fuel Duty

    Green levy on energy bills

    Stamp Duty

    Airport taxes

    etc, etc

    my 90%+ figure is a guess, but it can't be far wrong

    In feudal societies the state took a tythe or tenth typically


  4. If you proposition was correct, there must have been no poverty before the welfare state? Since this clearly was not the case, I think we can dismiss your proposition as being flawed.

    Scientific progress has meant that the necessities of life are now incredibly cheap to produce

    so why do we now need a welfare state?

    and how come since the welfare state was introduced there are still millions of people in such societies living on the breadline?

    As others have asserted, the welfare state was introduced as a way for TPTB to corner the vast majority of the additional wealth produced by automation and computerisation.

    The state in the UK even takes 10 Billion a year from people who can't even afford a roof over their heads to hand over to the wealthy elites in 'developing' countries.

    As Dave Spart used to say 'Wake Up'


  5. Analysis of some medium size 1990's vintage wind turbines. Failure rates intervals typically 4-5 years


    Well that's what the other guy said pages back.

    So we have gone from me being ludicrous suggesting that 15 years was optimistic

    to conceding that an average failure rate is 4-5 years.

    I think we are making progress.


  6. True capitalism is self regulating, because if the people producing all the stuff don't have any wealth, who is going to buy all the stuff they are producing.

    What we have at the moment is not capitalism, what we have is the Big State Social Welfare model

    in which the state bleeds all the real wealth out of the economy, which ultimately stagnates and collapses.

    There is no difference between this and Socialism or Communism

    its just the decline and inevitable failure is slower.


  7. The welfare state just traps people in poverty, including the workers who are forced to pay for it.

    It exists to entrench the wealth and position of the people who designed and administer it.

    At the end of the day everything the State does, it does very badly in comparison to the free market

    State healthcare is crap

    State Education is crap

    State care of children is crap

    State care of the elderly is crap

    The only thing that the state can do that the free market can't is fight wars

    and I'm not entirely sure that the masses benefited much from WW1 or WW2

    or will benefit from the next big show that is probably going to be arranged to mop up record levels of youth unemployment in Europe.



  8. Umm my knowledge on this is fairly limited. But with reference to wind power the technologies are very much 'new'. There are some pretty unique stresses and environments placed on components in wind turbines, which mean that though gearboxes/blades/etc have been in use in other fields for a long time, they have to be re-invented to work optimally with long operational life spans in this field.

    Optimizing wind turbines is much more complicated than might first appear.



    No sh*t Sherlock

    Generally mechanical devices are far more reliable when they are under constant load

    and not stuck on the end of a steel pole in some of the harshest environments in the world.

    And Christ knows what the cost of replacing the gearbox or generator is in an offshore turbine is.

    Pretty expensive I would imagine.


  9. I dont have one, perhaps no one except individual manufacturers have collated that data. The evidence may be there in rapidly improving capacity factors as 'MTBF' gets longer.

    The point still stands though- that paper you cite has little validity. Its like presenting a performance report on a Ford Cortina, Granada, Orion, and Sierra and using it as some sort of informed appraisal of Ford Cars built in 2012.

    Well this just takes the biscuit.

    I told you years ago that the gearboxes and generators wouldn't last anywhere near the time you were claiming.

    It's just like Triggers broom.

    The street sweeper from only Fools and Horses.

    He got an award from the council because he had the same broom for 25 years

    mind you it had 50 new heads and 25 new handles


  10. Hi,

    Hey, never let the facts get in the way of an environmentalists thought process.........actually, the first UK offshore one was at Blyth, constructed through 1999/2000 coming online (briefly) in December 2000, just so you know next time ;).

    Project value was a smidge under £4m, value from every penny, all the partners wanted was the piccies to show their gree credentials. CAPEX repayment period, 80 years, yep 80 years to payback the cost of construction, yet the turbines mean time to failure was only 5 years.

    Even though you'd think it would please the enviro-mentalists, they effectively ensured it would fail, by objecting to the wave cut plateau being cut to protect the cable - hence the almost immediate failure - but hey who cares, the pics were already on the annual reports.

    Just google Blyth Wind Farm.........if you want to find links

    You are clearly an expert, so they will probably ignore you.

    The ecomentalist concensus here is that wind turbines will last 25 years - which is obviously ludicrous.

    Anyway - good look trying to inject some facts into the argument

    because as you will soon realise - it isn't about facts, or science for that matter.


  11. Assuming that you are talking about me and Damik, I use the 'I win, you lose' tactic to try and get Damik to discuss the very links he posts, instead of running away. I would gladly go through any of them in detail but for some reason Damik is desperate to avoid doing so.

    If you knew anything about the history of science, then you'd know that hit and run tactics - such as posting a multitude of links and refusing to discuss them - are standard fare for those with weak and unsupportable positions.

    I gave up using tactics like that in primary school.

    And anyone who knows anything about the history of science would be far less certain in their beliefs.

    The only people who are certain they are right are religious fanatics

    scientists would never claim that any theory was 'the truth'


  12. I am still waiting for these global weather extreme events driven by the CAGW:


    <5096> Cook: A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability

    during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the

    "Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly

    in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have

    seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the

    MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

    The increase in damage due to weather events is due to population pressure

    People are now forced to live on land that humans have avoided living on for thousands of years.

    So weather events that would have gone largely unreported are now focused on because of the far greater impact they have on human populations.

    When Catrina flooded New Orleans for example, the Old Town which was built on higher ground was largely unaffected.

    The fact that hundreds of years ago, people were sensible enough to build in areas that were not prone to flooding

    tends to suggest that 'extreme' weather events were just as common in the past.


  13. The Fukushima nuclear accident really has no bearing on the issue of nuclear safety.

    It's like saying spoons are dangerous because some idiot jams a spoon in their ear.

    On reflection it would seem rather foolish to make the reactors Tsunami proof by building them on the top of a cliff

    then build the cooling plant on the low lying coastal plain.

    Surely this was an accident waiting to happen????

    Plus can anyone explain why, if the supporters of MMGW are so certain of their position

    they constantly resort to ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions the theory?

    Half of this thread is attacks by the pro camp on one particular poster

    who, to his credit has remained largely calm and polite throughout.

    And the 'I win, you lose' posts are just completely pathetic, to anyone with a mental age greater than 6 years.


  14. That's BS because of all the implicit subsidies that nuclear receives.

    For example how much do you think french electricity would cost if the french government mandated that EDF had to insure against the full cost of clean up of potential nuclear accidents, as opposed to the current system where the french taxpayer will pick up the tab. Another example is has EDF budgeted in the cost of monitoring/managing nuclear waste for tens of thousand years - like hell have they. Nor has the british nuclear industry budgeted the £73 billion required to decommission our soon to be replaced nuclear power stations. That's being paid for by the taxpayer.


    Though £73 billion is almost certainly a low ball estimate. Nuclear plants such as those at Oldbury are not scheduled to be fully decommissioned until year - I kid you not - 2110.

    We almost certainly need the energy. But don't kid yourself, the nuclear industry is the most subsidized form of power generation on the planet by many factors of 10.

    In a few decades nuclear waste will be dumped on the Moon.

    Meanwhile, everyone in Britain will have frozen to death as a result of Global Warming

    which - as everyone knows, will result in a mini-ice age in the western hemisphere due to ice melt



  15. if your base is nuclear and it's used as back-up for the wind and solar then there is no need to build the wind and solar at the first place

    as switching off nuclear does not save any money

    We had a mega thread about these issues a couple of years or so ago.

    Unfortunately this debate is not about science or economics

    it is about faith.

    Personally I think Lovelock was spot on with this part of his analysis,

    TBH he was spot on about most things in his Mea Culpa

    shame he can't bring himself to go the whole hog and admit that the theory of MMGW itself is hogwash

    still he's only 92 so there's still time I suppose


  16. There is an optimum level of tax and

    once this is exceeded the total take actually falls

    and economic activity is destroyed in the process.

    This is the point you cannot get anyone on the left to accept.

    The State has pretty much reached the end of the road taxation wise

    and either it cuts spending

    or all major economies in the West will ultimately collapse.

    The end game approaches

    probably another 10 years should do it.


  17. No such trap exists if you really, really want to earn more wealth. It's piss simple to see that once you get over the hump, even more riches await. The other thing is, if people really, really wanted to amass more wealth, they would claim benefits, live in a cardboard box, never buy clothes and instead put it all to one side for later. They don't - because people aren't that arsed about accumulating wealth.

    People don't mind making more stuff, it's just not a sky high priority compared to (for example) freedom. Or having a lie in.

    The reason you've heard of those things is because they are so rare.

    You obviously have no idea what life is really like for the majority of ordinary people especially those with children.

    You can spend your entire working life trying to get over 'the hump' because as the welfare state grows like cancer

    the amount taken from those in work to pay for it just increases relentlessly.

    And the reason that humans did not have an industrial revolution until recent times is that it took millions of years of constant struggle for humanity to get its numbers to the critical mass necessary to support an advanced technological society.

    How many humans did it take to put a man on the Moon? or does it take to make a microprocessor fabrication facility viable?


  18. When there are welfare systems you see entrenched poverty and a lack of further ambition.

    This is because people aren't that interested in wealth accumulation, they value other things. If people really bothered about wealth accumulation, then welfare systems wouldn't make any difference to lifestyles, choices or anything at all.

    For 99.9% of all human history people have had the clothes on their backs, maybe a bit of a roof over their heads, a stick of furniture and ****** all else. It's not the MO of a creature dedicated to amassing wealth.

    That's because welfare systems create a poverty trap

    not because people are happy with the barest minimum they need to survive

    When people trapped on welfare try and accumulate wealth, the system takes more from them than they can additionally earn

    hence the trap.

    Oh and it seems like you never heard of Stonehenge or the Pyramids or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.


  • 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.