Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest BoomBoomCrash

Paul Staines Aka Guidio Fawkes Gushes About 'pure Capitalism'

Recommended Posts

Guest BoomBoomCrash

http://order-order.com/2009/09/05/pure-capitalism/

Utterly nauseating example of what his blog has descended into. Ever since the credit crunch started he's been arguing the case for bankers bonuses and laissez faire capitalism. Of course this view may well have been influenced by the fact that he's an ex-cityboy himself. He seems to be unaware of the fact that capitalism is the reason for most of the poverty, hunger and thirst in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://order-order.com/2009/09/05/pure-capitalism/

Utterly nauseating example of what his blog has descended into. Ever since the credit crunch started he's been arguing the case for bankers bonuses and laissez faire capitalism. Of course this view may well have been influenced by the fact that he's an ex-cityboy himself. He seems to be unaware of the fact that capitalism is the reason for most of the poverty, hunger and thirst in the world.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silly me and I thought it was plain old greed and corruption that produced the current crisis. ;)

Greed and corruption are an essential part of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism has produced the current crisis. :rolleyes:

Not exactly.. pure capitalism would have punished anyone involved (even innocents) which would have ensured the system would be changed and it would not happen again for a very long time.

As it is we have socialised the losses and kept everything intact.. meaning no lessons have been learned and "capitalism" can continue to rampage risk free. Well done state intervention :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
blah blah blah... What are your solutions?

Simple, we set about restoring the status of 'greed' as an antisocial behaviour. Something to be frowned upon, not a cause for celebration. Greed is not good, it is immoral and childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple, we set about restoring the status of 'greed' as an antisocial behaviour. Something to be frowned upon, not a cause for celebration. Greed is not good, it is immoral and childish.

I presume therfore, that you have given everything you own to charity and now permantly work helping the poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I presume that you didn't have much of an education then?

No, you can presume I can't be arsed to spell check after I've typed. I also presumed no one on this forum was enough of an ass hole to bother pointing it out. Funny how things work out though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
I presume therfore, that you have given everything you own to charity and now permantly work helping the poor.

How does making myself poor help the poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
No, you can presume I can't be arsed to spell check after I've typed. I also presumed no one on this forum was enough of an ass hole to bother pointing it out. Funny how things work out though.

How presumptuous of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does making myself poor help the poor?

It doesn't. But as you berated someone that gives them clean water, I thought you had something much better up your sleeve.

edit: grammar. yes, i know.

Edited by bazzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does making myself poor help the poor?

Because wealth is relative. No point increasing the wages of the low paid without decreasing the wages of the above averagely paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
Because wealth is relative. No point increasing the wages of the low paid without decreasing the wages of the above averagely paid.

When we talk of poverty though our point of reference is the prevailing cost of living in the nation in which one resides. The fact that some city spiv lives in a solid gold diamond encrusted mansion is obscene, but not relevant in the first instance. I'm talking about the kind of poverty that means that families are living in squalid conditions, eating poorly and are the victims of ingrained social disadvantage.

Edited by BoomBoomCrash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand what you're saying. Someone has invented a decent - yet currently expensive - way to clean water to make it drinkable. Yet here you are saying it's bad and offer no solution yourself. I'm baffled. What is the issue? The fact someone is earning money from their invention? The fact it was required in the first place?

edit: - would it have been invented if the person had no incentive (e.g. money) to invent it?

Edited by bazzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When we talk of poverty though our point of reference is the prevailing cost of living in the nation in which one resides. The fact that some city spiv lives in a solid gold diamond encrusted mansion is obscene, but not relevant in the first instance. I'm talking about the kind of poverty that means that families are living in squalid conditions, eating poorly and are the victims of ingrained social disadvantage.

People in this country have never had it so good poor diet and lifestyle is self-determined not collateral damage from a more prosperous section of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BoomBoomCrash
People in this country have never had it so good poor diet and lifestyle is self-determined not collateral damage from a more prosperous section of society.

Do those rose tinted specs have prescription lenses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do those rose tinted specs have prescription lenses?

I don't accept that just because one section of society is much poorer relative to a high-earning section that they're enduring grinding material poverty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.