Paul Krugman Attacks Britain's Austerity Drive As 'deeply Destructive'

[KingBingo]

they could also be right wing nationalists.

Nonsense. About the only example of Right wing nationalists your find in this country is UKIP who are libertarian.

However the BBC and the educational system routinely mislabel left wing nationalists such as the BNP or Nazi parties as right wing nationalists as being left wingers themselves they dislike the proximity.

[Game_Over]

Nonsense. About the only example of Right wing nationalists your find in this country is UKIP who are libertarian.

However the BBC and the educational system routinely mislabel left wing nationalists such as the BNP or Nazi parties as right wing nationalists as being left wingers themselves they dislike the proximity.

I agree, the SNP, BNP, Welsh Nationalists and Sinn Fein are all national socialists

[Bloo Loo]

Nonsense. About the only example of Right wing nationalists your find in this country is UKIP who are libertarian.

However the BBC and the educational system routinely mislabel left wing nationalists such as the BNP or Nazi parties as right wing nationalists as being left wingers themselves they dislike the proximity.

call it what you like, left/right, whatever, at the extreme, there are the ruled and the ruler, the ruler sustained by control, not consent, of the ruled.

[gf3]

Nonsense. About the only example of Right wing nationalists your find in this country is UKIP who are libertarian.

However the BBC and the educational system routinely mislabel left wing nationalists such as the BNP or Nazi parties as right wing nationalists as being left wingers themselves they dislike the proximity.

That is so deluded I decided to add it to my Signature

[Bloo Loo]

I agree, the SNP, BNP, Welsh Nationalists and Sinn Fein are all national socialists

Names matter little when its you one the wrong end of a 3 AM arrest warrant.

[KingBingo]

call it what you like, left/right, whatever,

Which is exactly what the BBC and schools have trained you to think when confronted with the truth.

[Bloo Loo]

Which is exactly what the BBC and schools have trained you to think when confronted with the truth.

there is of course, no such thing as left or right...I beleive it was coined when the French Government bods settled on one side of their house or the other.

All I know is that whatever the hue, their sole interest is themselves...and as a career path is power for its own sake...well, I leave the rest to those who wish to argue whether a 3 AM warrant is a good thing or not for a letter written to the Times expressing a "dissident" view.

[gf3]

Which is exactly what the BBC and schools have trained you to think when confronted with the truth.

[alexw]

So you think that in Socialist Societies a few families don't control all the wealth?

Seriously - you actually believe this?????????

You really have no idea what socialism is about. Let me put it in a historical context for you.

Socialism arose as a modern economic/political system during the industrial revolution. At that time vast new amounts of wealth were being created from the industrialization process, but rather than seeing an increase in their standards of living, for the masses it was falling catastrophically. For example the lifespan of an adult male/female worker in manchaster was 17 years, starvation and malnutrition were pretty common, and workers often developed rickets from lack of sunshine because of the dank and dark hovels and factories they lived/worked in.

For example wikipedia has this to say -

"Children as young as four were employed.[36] Beatings and long hours were common, with some child coal miners and hurriers working from 4 am until 5 pm.[36] Conditions were dangerous, with some children killed when they dozed off and fell into the path of the carts, while others died from gas explosions.[36] Many children developed lung cancer and other diseases and died before the age of 25.[36] Workhouses would sell orphans and abandoned children as "pauper apprentices", working without wages for board and lodging.[36] Those who ran away would be whipped and returned to their masters, with some masters shackling them to prevent escape.[36] Children employed as mule scavenger by cotton mills would crawl under machinery to pick up cotton, working 14 hours a day, six days a week. Some lost hands or limbs, others were crushed under the machines, and some were decapitated.[36] Young girls worked at match factories, where phosphorus fumes would cause many to develop phossy jaw.[36] Children employed at glassworks were regularly burned and blinded, and those working at potteries were vulnerable to poisonous clay dust.[36]"

"Living conditions during the Industrial Revolution varied from the splendour of the homes of the owners to the squalor of the lives of the workers. Poor people lived in very small houses in cramped streets. These homes would share toilet facilities, have open sewers and would be at risk of developing pathologies associated with persistent dampness. Disease was spread through a contaminated water supply."

Now, vast amounts of new wealth was being created, but the problem was workers were seeing none of it. Just about none was spent on their working conditions, and similarly none was spent on their standards of living. It was truly a horrendous time for the working man and woman.

As a result socialism and unions arose as a means to ensure that the common man got a greater share of the economic pie, and this is exactly what they did. Either directly through wages or through laws, institutions, and spending that would benefit them their lot drastically improved in the latter part of the industrial revolution. At its heart this is all socialism is about, though there are many different flavours of it such as communism, the Jon Lewis partnership model (yes this is socialism in action!), or european socialism, it is about placing the needs/conditions/wages of the average man above that of capital and the elites.

This is why your statement that "in Socialist Societies a few families don't control all the wealth" is stupid and idiotic in the extreme. Socialism arose to combat exactly this!

Oh such individuals or societies may call themselves socialist, for example Lenin did, but its simply a label they use to attract support and further their own ends. Just as the current oligarchs and plutocrats running the US and UK call the current system capitalism, and anyone attacking it or attacking the bank bailouts as attacking capitalism.

Or are you so brainwashed as to really believe Lloyd Blankfein is a capitalist doing 'God's Work'? Because the other 99.9% of us know he isn't, he's a plutocrat plundering the wealth of whomever he can. He's neither a capitalist nor socialist. Nor is the system we currently have in any sense socialism or capitalism, that has the benefit of the masses in mind. Its an oligarchy/plutocracy run for the oligarchs/plutocrats, by the oligarchs/plutocrats, with only the benefit oligarchs/plutocrats in mind!

Edited June 3, 2012 by alexw

[Game_Over]

You really have no idea what socialism is about. Let me put it in a historical context for you.

Socialism arose as a modern economic/political system during the industrial revolution. At that time vast new amounts of wealth were being created from the industrialization process, but rather than seeing an increase in their standards of living, for the masses it was falling catastrophically. For example the lifespan of an adult male/female worker in manchaster was 17 years, starvation and malnutrition were pretty common, and workers often developed rickets from lack of sunshine because of the dank and dark hovels and factories they lived/worked in.

For example wikipedia has this to say -

"Children as young as four were employed.[36] Beatings and long hours were common, with some child coal miners and hurriers working from 4 am until 5 pm.[36] Conditions were dangerous, with some children killed when they dozed off and fell into the path of the carts, while others died from gas explosions.[36] Many children developed lung cancer and other diseases and died before the age of 25.[36] Workhouses would sell orphans and abandoned children as "pauper apprentices", working without wages for board and lodging.[36] Those who ran away would be whipped and returned to their masters, with some masters shackling them to prevent escape.[36] Children employed as mule scavenger by cotton mills would crawl under machinery to pick up cotton, working 14 hours a day, six days a week. Some lost hands or limbs, others were crushed under the machines, and some were decapitated.[36] Young girls worked at match factories, where phosphorus fumes would cause many to develop phossy jaw.[36] Children employed at glassworks were regularly burned and blinded, and those working at potteries were vulnerable to poisonous clay dust.[36]"

"Living conditions during the Industrial Revolution varied from the splendour of the homes of the owners to the squalor of the lives of the workers. Poor people lived in very small houses in cramped streets. These homes would share toilet facilities, have open sewers and would be at risk of developing pathologies associated with persistent dampness. Disease was spread through a contaminated water supply."

Now, vast amounts of new wealth was being created, but the problem was workers were seeing none of it. Just about none was spent on their working conditions, and similarly none was spent on their standards of living. It was truly a horrendous time for the working man and woman.

As a result socialism and unions arose as a means to ensure that the common man got a greater share of the economic pie, and this is exactly what they did. Either directly through wages or through laws, institutions, and spending that would benefit them their lot drastically improved in the latter part of the industrial revolution. At its heart this is all socialism is about, though there are many different flavours of it such as communism, the Jon Lewis partnership model, or european socialism, it is about placing the needs/conditions/wages of the average man above that of capital and the elites.

This is why your statement that "in Socialist Societies a few families don't control all the wealth" is stupid and idiotic in the extreme. Socialism arose to combat exactly this!

Oh such individuals or societies may call themselves socialist, for example Lenin did, but its simply a label they use to attract support and further their own ends. Just as the current oligarchs and plutocrats running the US and UK call the current system capitalism, and anyone attacking it or attacking the bank bailouts as attacking capitalism. Or are you so brainwashed as to really believe Lloyd Blankfein is a capitalist doing 'God's Work'? Because the other 99.9% of us know he isn't, he's a plutocrat plundering the wealth of whomever he can.

Ever heard of Ceausescu or Enver Hodja as just two examples?

You are doing what the left on here always do which is to argue that people who even labelled themselves as Socialist were not real Socialists.

The argument goes that real Socialism works, all the attempts made in the 20th Century were corrupted by greed and inefficiency

The reality is that corruption, greed and inefficiency are the logical conclusion of Socialist policies and the only reason any of these states last as long as they do is because their populations are terrorised by armies of secret police and shot if they try and leave.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it sure as Hell is preferable to any of the alternatives suggested by the left.

[alexw]

Ever heard of Ceausescu or Enver Hodja as just two examples?

You are doing what the left on here always do which is to argue that people who even labelled themselves as Socialist were not real Socialists.

The argument goes that real Socialism works, all the attempts made in the 20th Century were corrupted by greed and inefficiency

The reality is that corruption, greed and inefficiency are the logical conclusion of Socialist policies and the only reason any of these states last as long as they do is because their populations are terrorised by armies of secret police and shot if they try and leave.

Capitalism isn't perfect but it sure as Hell is preferable to any of the alternatives suggested by the left.

Garbage.

The GREATEST period of improvement for the masses in the west was between 1945-1975, and that was and is considered to be a socialist period in history. In the US they even have a name for it, 'the great prosperity'.

And socialism did work, or are you saying that socialism didn't cause improvements in the lives of the masses in the latter part of the industrial revolution?? That what i posted above never happened??

Edited June 3, 2012 by alexw

[Bloo Loo]

Garbage.

The GREATEST period of improvement for the masses in the west was between 1945-1975, and that was and is considered to be a socialist period in history. In the US they even have a name for it, 'the great prosperity'.

And socialism did work, or are you saying that socialism didn't cause improvements in the lives of the masses in the latter part of the industrial revolution?? That what i posted above never happened??

being stuck on an ism is just plain stupid...some years you need to rebalance towards the people, call it socialism if you like, then you need to rebalance to the employers, call that conservatism if you like, now, we need to rebalance AWAY from Government....that is ANY type...Its too big and could quickly strangle us all...

[KingBingo]

That is so deluded I decided to add it to my Signature

I sympathise with you. You have spent your whole life being told that the Nazis are extreme right wing, so basically like the Tories, only more so.

Well believe it or not National Socialists are actually Socialists, they are left wing. But that causes you huge cognitive dissonance because you have been brainwashed to believe otherwise.

Watch this and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsFoiVZDSRs

[KingBingo]

That is so deluded I decided to add it to my Signature

Oh and thanks for adding it to your sig.

P.S, why do you think the BNP only ever put up candidates in staunch Labour seats?

[KingBingo]

......

I'm not even going to read your posts, all you do is copy and paste off something you found on Google, you don't understand hat your trying to say thicko.

[alexw]

I'm not even going to read your posts, all you do is copy and paste off something you found on Google, you don't understand hat your trying to say thicko.

Time to put this moron, with a mental age of between 8 and 12, on ignore.....

My first ever.

Congratulations.

[nixy]

Garbage.

The GREATEST period of improvement for the masses in the west was between 1945-1975, and that was and is considered to be a socialist period in history. In the US they even have a name for it, 'the great prosperity'.

And socialism did work, or are you saying that socialism didn't cause improvements in the lives of the masses in the latter part of the industrial revolution?? That what i posted above never happened??

I'd suggest improvements to the lives of the masses was entirely due to advances in technology, certainly NOT socialism. Any advances were made IN SPITE of socialism, not because of it.

??

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

I'd suggest improvements to the lives of the masses was entirely due to advances in technology, certainly NOT socialism. Any advances were made IN SPITE of socialism, not because of it.

??

No, the technological development has been happening since weve been here, the wealth distribution was and is an entirely relative thing, the problem here is not left or rightism it is simply statism, Kingism, Tsarism or any other method of forced bollarcks being dressed up in a name, special flowers redistributing wealth for the greater good in whoevers favour be they workers, owners of financial capital, or owners of land at any given time, it is this forced distortion, whoever it is carried out by to favour any particular group over the market that ultimately destroys the economy over time as people will over time adapt to take advantage of the favouritism and distortion.

Regardless from 45 to to the early 60s there was a clear far more balanced distribution of productivity (however even by the 60s the state was promising/spending well beyond its means which is why they started printing as opposed to QE and there was rapid inflation in the 70s (with the overspending ultimately saved in the short term [over the long cycle] by the development/productivity of the computer)

Why this happened specifically from 45 to the 60/70s is open to debate however i would wager it was because 90% of the male popn were very handy with a gun, as opposed to now when 90% of the male popn are handy with a joypad. Any way you cut it however the state has over the last 30 years massively distorted the economic gains towards the owners of capital such that investing that capital in any nonsense has been a winner, the fact theyve also been looking after deadbeats who do nothing at the bottom of society is somewhat irrelevant to the three forementioned cornerstones of economic production

Edited June 3, 2012 by Georgia O'Keeffe

[alexw]

I'd suggest improvements to the lives of the masses was entirely due to advances in technology, certainly NOT socialism. Any advances were made IN SPITE of socialism, not because of it.

??

Technology enabled new wealth to be created, it was socialism which enabled the masses to direct the flow of the that wealth to the masses.

Thus from 1945 to 1980 when unions and socialism was fairly strong in the US the wages of your average worker doubled. In 1980 with Ronald Reagen the system lurched towards the right with capital becoming ascendent over labour. The unions were eviscerated, via propaganda socialism was turned into a dirty word and destroyed, and with its death the wealth arising from technology was redirected away from the masses to the plutocrats. Thus from 1980 to 2010 the wages of the average worker increased by a mere 8%. Contrast that with the prior time period when it doubled.

[Bloo Loo]

snip In 1980 with Ronald Reagen the system lurched towards the right with capital becoming ascendent over labour. snip

I think you'll find they needed to get costs down for labour to pay for all the debt they began accumulating to pay the promises of the previous 30 years to the workers.....its all about to end

[KingBingo]

Time to put this moron, with a mental age of between 8 and 12, on ignore.....

My first ever.

Congratulations.

Good, I won't have to have any more of your galacticly stupid copy and pastes from Wikipedia slung at me then.

[wonderpup]

Watch this and learn:

You do know the Heritage foundadtion is a creature of the Koch brothers;

The political activities of the Koch family are the political activities of the family of the late Fred C. Koch, a co-founder of Koch Industries, an oil, gas, and chemical conglomerate which is the second largest privately held company in the United States with annual revenues of $110 billion.

Public records show that the Kochs gave more than $17 million between 1997 and 2008 to various groups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which lobbies for legislation opposing unions.

Yeah- these are guys are who you should be relying on to support the freedom and liberty of the little guy.

[Game_Over]

You do know the Heritage foundadtion is a creature of the Koch brothers;

Yeah- these are guys are who you should be relying on to support the freedom and liberty of the little guy.

Whereas the people you think have all the answers murdered tens of millions of their own citizens.

[alexw]

I think you'll find they needed to get costs down for labour to pay for all the debt they began accumulating to pay the promises of the previous 30 years to the workers.....its all about to end

No. If that were true there would not have been the massive rise in inequality that the U.S. has experienced. If the reason was to redirect wealth to retirees then a mere 400 families would not now own over half the U.S. wealth.

[KingBingo]

You do know the Heritage foundadtion is a creature of the Koch brothers;

Yeah coz large states tax and suppress their citizens on mass.

Besides, it was the author speaking I was drawing your attention to, not the logo behind him.